PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY: PHASE 1- FRAMEWORK REPORT · PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY:...

i

FORUM BUILDING, 159 STRUBEN STREET, PRETORIA, 0001, GAUTENG, SOUTH AFRICA

RAIL WORKING GROUP

PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY:

PHASE 1- FRAMEWORK REPORT Final: June 2009

REFERENCE No: RL/4/06-2009

DOCUMENT SUMMARY SHEET

Report Number RL/4/06-2009

Status: Final Report

Document Title: NATIONAL TRANSPORT MASTER PLAN 2050:

RAIL WORKING GROUP REPORT

PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY: PHASE 1 – FRAMEWORK

REPORT

Date: June 2009

Prepared For: Department of Transport

Forum Building, cnr Struben and Bosman Streets, Pretoria Private Bag X193, Pretoria, 0001

Prepared By: Rail Working Group, represented by:

Africon

SSI

Ingérop

In association with

- 1 -

National Transport Master Plan (NATMAP)

Passenger Rail Technology Study

Phase 1: Framework Report

Contents

CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................................. 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 7

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Broad scope .......................................................................................................................................... 7 Problem statement ................................................................................................................................ 7 A passenger rail technology framework ............................................................................................... 7

APPLICATION TO SOUTH AFRICA ............................................................................................................... 7 Priority issues ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Findings ................................................................................................................................................ 7

POTENTIAL NEW INVESTMENT .................................................................................................................... 8 Urban heavy rail................................................................................................................................... 8 Urban light rail and alternatives .......................................................................................................... 8 Regional rail ......................................................................................................................................... 8 High-speed rail ..................................................................................................................................... 8 Ultra-high-speed rail ............................................................................................................................ 9

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................... 9 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................................. 9 NOTE ...................................................................................................................................................... 10

1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 11

1.1 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 11 1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT ............................................................................................................... 11 1.3 OBJECTIVE ................................................................................................................................. 11 1.4 STUDY STRUCTURE .................................................................................................................... 12

1.4.1 Design .................................................................................................................................. 12 1.4.2 Funding ................................................................................................................................ 12 1.4.3 Study roadmap ..................................................................................................................... 12

1.5 ACRONYMS, DEFINITIONS, AND TERMINOLOGY ......................................................................... 13 1.6 STUDY METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................. 16

1.6.1 Significance of the global railway renaissance .................................................................... 16 1.6.2 The systems approach as an analytic toolset ....................................................................... 17

1.6.2.1 General systems theory .............................................................................................................. 17 1.6.2.2 Types of systems ....................................................................................................................... 17 1.6.2.3 Validity of the systems approach as toolset ............................................................................... 18 1.6.2.4 Applying the systems approach to a passenger rail technology study in South Africa .............. 19

2 THE STATUS QUO ......................................................................................................................... 20

2.1 IN SOUTH AFRICA ...................................................................................................................... 20 2.1.1 Public passenger transport systems ..................................................................................... 20

2.1.1.1 Applying the systems approach ................................................................................................. 20 2.1.1.2 Learning from the systems approach ......................................................................................... 20 2.1.1.3 Legacy systems.......................................................................................................................... 21 2.1.1.4 Realizing the vision ................................................................................................................... 21

2.1.2 Urban rail assets (Metrorail) ............................................................................................... 21 2.1.2.1 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 21 2.1.2.2 Trains......................................................................................................................................... 22 2.1.2.3 Life expectancy ......................................................................................................................... 23

2.1.3 Long-distance rail assets (Shosholoza Meyl) ....................................................................... 25 2.1.3.1 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 25

- 2 -

2.1.3.2 Trains......................................................................................................................................... 28 2.1.3.3 Life expectancy ......................................................................................................................... 29

2.1.4 Expectations ......................................................................................................................... 30 2.1.5 Opportunity knocks .............................................................................................................. 30

2.2 IN AFRICA .................................................................................................................................. 31 2.2.1 Africa, business destination .................................................................................................. 31 2.2.2 North Africa ......................................................................................................................... 31 2.2.3 Iron ore railways .................................................................................................................. 32 2.2.4 West Africa ........................................................................................................................... 32 2.2.5 The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA) .................................... 32 2.2.6 A new dawn .......................................................................................................................... 33

2.3 GLOBALLY ................................................................................................................................. 33 2.3.1 A basic rail orientation ........................................................................................................ 33 2.3.2 Two implementation examples ............................................................................................. 34

2.3.2.1 A city—Dublin .......................................................................................................................... 34 2.3.2.2 A country—Turkey ................................................................................................................... 34

2.4 POSITIONING PASSENGER RAIL ................................................................................................... 35 2.4.1 A research foundation .......................................................................................................... 35 2.4.2 Urban systems ...................................................................................................................... 35 2.4.3 Regional- and intercity rail systems ..................................................................................... 36

3 SCOPE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................ 37

3.1 A REFLECTION OF USER REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................... 37 3.2 INCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 37 3.3 EXCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................. 37

4 A PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY FRAMEWORK ........................................................... 38

4.1 STRATEGIC GAP IDENTIFICATION ............................................................................................... 38 4.1.1 Former times ........................................................................................................................ 38 4.1.2 Recent times ......................................................................................................................... 39 4.1.3 Setting course ....................................................................................................................... 39

4.2 POSITIONING PASSENGER RAIL FOR COMPETITIVENESS AND SUSTAINABILITY ........................... 39 4.2.1 The fundamental drivers of railway competitiveness ........................................................... 39

4.2.1.1 Distinctions among transport modes.......................................................................................... 39 4.2.1.2 Railway genetic technologies .................................................................................................... 40 4.2.1.3 One potentially weak market space ........................................................................................... 40 4.2.1.4 Urban rail................................................................................................................................... 41 4.2.1.5 The important role of track gauge ............................................................................................. 41

4.2.2 Good corporate citizenship .................................................................................................. 42 4.2.2.1 Convenience .............................................................................................................................. 42 4.2.2.2 Climate change considerations .................................................................................................. 42 4.2.2.3 The security subsystem .............................................................................................................. 43

4.3 MAINSTREAM CONVENTIONAL PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS .............................. 44 4.3.1 A menu of contemporary solutions ....................................................................................... 44 4.3.2 Light Rail .............................................................................................................................. 44

4.3.2.1 Evolution ................................................................................................................................... 44 4.3.2.2 Vehicle design ........................................................................................................................... 45 4.3.2.3 Traction characteristics .............................................................................................................. 45 4.3.2.4 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 45 4.3.2.5 Performance .............................................................................................................................. 45 4.3.2.6 Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 46 4.3.2.7 Costing ...................................................................................................................................... 46 4.3.2.8 Key technical system parameters ............................................................................................... 46 4.3.2.9 Tram-train.................................................................................................................................. 47

4.3.3 Light Metro .......................................................................................................................... 47 4.3.3.1 General description .................................................................................................................... 47 4.3.3.2 Key technical system parameters ............................................................................................... 48

4.3.4 Heavy Metro, or simply Metro ............................................................................................. 48 4.3.4.1 Origin ........................................................................................................................................ 48 4.3.4.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 49 4.3.4.3 Vehicle design ........................................................................................................................... 49 4.3.4.4 Performance .............................................................................................................................. 49 4.3.4.5 Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 50

- 3 -

4.3.4.6 The enigma of track gauge ........................................................................................................ 50 4.3.4.7 Costing ...................................................................................................................................... 51 4.3.4.8 Key technical system parameters ............................................................................................... 51

4.3.5 Regional rail......................................................................................................................... 51 4.3.5.1 Origin ........................................................................................................................................ 51 4.3.5.2 Trains......................................................................................................................................... 52 4.3.5.3 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 52 4.3.5.4 Performance .............................................................................................................................. 53 4.3.5.5 Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 53 4.3.5.6 Costing ...................................................................................................................................... 53 4.3.5.7 Key technical system parameters ............................................................................................... 53

4.3.6 High-speed Intercity ............................................................................................................. 54 4.3.6.1 Origin ........................................................................................................................................ 54 4.3.6.2 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 54 4.3.6.3 Services ..................................................................................................................................... 54 4.3.6.4 Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 55 4.3.6.5 Freight access ............................................................................................................................ 55 4.3.6.6 Costing ...................................................................................................................................... 55 4.3.6.7 Key technical system parameters ............................................................................................... 55

4.3.7 Ultra-high-speed Intercity .................................................................................................... 56 4.3.7.1 The market space ....................................................................................................................... 56 4.3.7.2 Rolling stock ............................................................................................................................. 56 4.3.7.3 Performance .............................................................................................................................. 56 4.3.7.4 Infrastructure ............................................................................................................................. 56 4.3.7.5 Capacity ..................................................................................................................................... 57 4.3.7.6 Costing ...................................................................................................................................... 57 4.3.7.7 Key technical system parameters ............................................................................................... 58

4.3.8 Emergence of standards ....................................................................................................... 58 4.3.8.1 A moving target ......................................................................................................................... 58 4.3.8.2 European influences .................................................................................................................. 59 4.3.8.3 North American influences ........................................................................................................ 59 4.3.8.4 A way forward ........................................................................................................................... 60

4.4 ESSENTIAL PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................................. 60 4.4.1 Tapping into the mainstream ................................................................................................ 60 4.4.2 Basic infrastructure system parameters ............................................................................... 60

4.4.2.1 The guideway subsystem ........................................................................................................... 60 4.4.2.2 The energy supply subsystem .................................................................................................... 61 4.4.2.3 The signaling- and safety subsystem ......................................................................................... 62

4.4.3 Track-gauge-related infrastructure parameters ................................................................... 63 4.4.3.1 Platform height and width ......................................................................................................... 63 4.4.3.2 Horizontal alignment ................................................................................................................. 64 4.4.3.3 Vertical alignment ..................................................................................................................... 65 4.4.3.4 Vertical curvature ...................................................................................................................... 65 4.4.3.5 Signal spacing ........................................................................................................................... 65

4.4.4 Basic rolling stock system parameters ................................................................................. 65 4.4.4.1 The train braking- and propulsion subsystem ............................................................................ 65 4.4.4.2 The passenger capacity subsystem ............................................................................................ 66 4.4.4.3 The ambience subsystem ........................................................................................................... 67

4.4.5 Track-gauge-related rolling stock parameters ..................................................................... 68 4.4.5.1 Riding quality ............................................................................................................................ 68 4.4.5.2 Vehicle profile ........................................................................................................................... 68 4.4.5.3 Track centre distance ................................................................................................................. 70 4.4.5.4 Vehicle length............................................................................................................................ 70 4.4.5.5 Speed and stability ..................................................................................................................... 71 4.4.5.6 Body tilting ................................................................................................................................ 72

4.4.6 Matching infrastructure- and rolling stock parameters ....................................................... 73 4.4.7 Significant new global developments ................................................................................... 74

4.4.7.1 Dedicated freight- and passenger corridors ............................................................................... 74 4.4.7.2 Proprietary trains ....................................................................................................................... 75 4.4.7.3 Intraoperability .......................................................................................................................... 76 4.4.7.4 Discrete energy supply .............................................................................................................. 77 4.4.7.5 Communication based train control ........................................................................................... 77 4.4.7.6 Automatic train operation .......................................................................................................... 78 4.4.7.7 Industrial design ........................................................................................................................ 79

4.5 ALTERNATIVE GUIDED SURFACE TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGIES ................................................... 80

- 4 -

4.5.1 Alternatives to steel-wheel-on-steel-rail............................................................................... 80 4.5.2 Rubber-tyred solutions ......................................................................................................... 80

4.5.2.1 Heavy Metro .............................................................................................................................. 80 4.5.2.2 Automated Light Metro—VAL ................................................................................................. 81

4.5.3 Monorail ............................................................................................................................... 81 4.5.4 Maglev .................................................................................................................................. 83 4.5.5 Bus rapid transit ................................................................................................................... 84 4.5.6 Application potential ............................................................................................................ 85

4.6 PERIPHERAL RAIL APPLICATIONS ............................................................................................... 85 4.7 THE AFRICAN UNION RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................ 86 4.8 RELATIONS BETWEEN TECHNOLOGY AND FUNDING ................................................................... 87

5 APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO SOUTH AFRICA ........................................................... 87

5.1 A GENERAL DIRECTION .............................................................................................................. 87 5.1.1 Positioning passenger rail for sustainability ....................................................................... 87 5.1.2 A prognosis on Transnet Freight Rail .................................................................................. 88 5.1.3 The basic approach .............................................................................................................. 88

5.2 MIGRATION PATHS TOWARD CONTEMPORARY TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS .................................. 89 5.2.1 Taking a view on interoperability ........................................................................................ 89

5.2.1.1 Learning from the systems approach ......................................................................................... 89 5.2.1.2 Interchanging and interoperating ............................................................................................... 89 5.2.1.3 Challenging existing precepts .................................................................................................... 90

5.2.2 Matching subsystems ............................................................................................................ 91 5.2.2.1 Urban infrastructure................................................................................................................... 91 5.2.2.2 Intercity and regional infrastructure .......................................................................................... 91 5.2.2.3 Train authorization: Capacity versus speed ............................................................................... 92

5.2.3 Sourcing passenger rail technology ..................................................................................... 92 5.2.3.1 The influence of the railway renaissance and globalization ...................................................... 92 5.2.3.2 Global sourcing ......................................................................................................................... 93 5.2.3.3 Possible stumbling blocks ......................................................................................................... 94 5.2.3.4 South Africa’s procurement leverage ........................................................................................ 95 5.2.3.5 Maximizing life-cycle value ...................................................................................................... 95

5.2.4 Changing track gauge from narrow to standard .................................................................. 97 5.2.4.1 Techniques ................................................................................................................................ 97 5.2.4.2 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 98 5.2.4.3 Recycling infrastructure .......................................................................................................... 100

5.3 CANDIDATE CONTEMPORARY PASSENGER RAIL SOLUTIONS ..................................................... 100 5.3.1 Developing a short list ....................................................................................................... 100 5.3.2 Urban solutions .................................................................................................................. 101

5.3.2.1 Light Rail................................................................................................................................. 101 5.3.2.2 Light Metro ............................................................................................................................. 101 5.3.2.3 Automated Light Metro ........................................................................................................... 101 5.3.2.4 Metro ....................................................................................................................................... 101

5.3.3 Mainline solutions .............................................................................................................. 102 5.3.3.1 Regional rail ............................................................................................................................ 102 5.3.3.2 High-speed intercity ................................................................................................................ 102 5.3.3.3 Ultra high speed....................................................................................................................... 102

5.4 EMERGING CONTEMPORARY PASSENGER RAILWAY TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS ................... 102 5.4.1 Opportunities to join the global mainstream ...................................................................... 102 5.4.2 Gautrain ............................................................................................................................. 103 5.4.3 Moloto Rail......................................................................................................................... 103 5.4.4 Mthatha-Port Elizabeth High-speed Link .......................................................................... 104

5.5 RENEWING AND UPGRADING PASSENGER RAILWAY TECHNOLOGY .......................................... 104 5.5.1 Selected route studies ......................................................................................................... 104

5.5.1.1 Rationale.................................................................................................................................. 104 5.5.1.2 Gauteng Regional Rail ............................................................................................................ 105 5.5.1.3 The Gauteng-eThekwini Primary Corridor .............................................................................. 108 5.5.1.4 The Gauteng-Cape Town Primary Corridor ............................................................................ 110 5.5.1.5 Durban-Mthatha/East London/Port Elizabeth-Cape Town ...................................................... 110 5.5.1.6 The eThekwini North-South Corridor ..................................................................................... 111 5.5.1.7 Gauteng-Bloemfontein ............................................................................................................ 112 5.5.1.8 Gauteng-eThekwini via the Coal Line ..................................................................................... 114 5.5.1.9 Learning from the routes selected ............................................................................................ 115

- 5 -

5.5.2 PRASA plans ...................................................................................................................... 115 5.5.2.1 General comments ................................................................................................................... 115 5.5.2.2 Rolling stock implicit in plans ................................................................................................. 116 5.5.2.3 Rolling stock options ............................................................................................................... 116 5.5.2.4 Rural Rail Plan ........................................................................................................................ 118

6 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 119

6.1 GENERAL APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 119 6.1.1 Seize the opportunity .......................................................................................................... 119 6.1.2 Make opening moves .......................................................................................................... 119

6.2 ADDRESS PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY ISSUES .................................................................... 120 6.2.1 Migrate to standard gauge ................................................................................................. 120 6.2.2 Rationalize vehicle profile and platform height ................................................................. 120 6.2.3 Set aside selected interoperability requirements ................................................................ 121 6.2.4 Implement automatic train protection ................................................................................ 121 6.2.5 Evaluate automatic train operation ................................................................................... 122 6.2.6 Examine rubber-tyred solutions ......................................................................................... 122

6.3 SEGMENT AND FOCUS .............................................................................................................. 122 6.3.1 Create space ....................................................................................................................... 122 6.3.2 Physically separate metro and mainline operations .......................................................... 123 6.3.3 Share freight and passenger corridors ............................................................................... 123 6.3.4 Align capacity and signalling ............................................................................................. 123

6.4 DEVELOP METRO INFRASTRUCTURE-AND-ROLLING-STOCK PROTOTYPE .................................. 124 6.5 RATIONALIZE SPECIAL TRACKWORK ........................................................................................ 124 6.6 RE-BRAND PASSENGER RAIL SERVICES .................................................................................... 124

6.6.1 Segment Metrorail .............................................................................................................. 124 6.6.2 Segment Shosholoza Meyl .................................................................................................. 125 6.6.3 Re-deploy 5M/10M rolling stock ........................................................................................ 125

6.7 INFORM POLICY FORMULATION ................................................................................................ 126 6.7.1 Ensure unobstructed migration paths ................................................................................ 126 6.7.2 Maximize contribution by local industry ............................................................................ 126 6.7.3 Establish appropriate standards ........................................................................................ 127

6.8 PLAN FUTURE STUDY PHASES .................................................................................................. 127 6.8.1 Scope .................................................................................................................................. 127 6.8.2 Phase 2—Stakeholder workshop ........................................................................................ 127 6.8.3 Phase 3a—Selected local case studies ............................................................................... 128 6.8.4 Phase 3b International—specific questions for international consultants ......................... 128

6.8.4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 128 6.8.4.2 Nature of Phase 3 .................................................................................................................... 128 6.8.4.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 128 6.8.4.4 Possible questions .................................................................................................................... 128 6.8.4.5 Possible routes ......................................................................................................................... 129 6.8.4.6 Prospective international consultants....................................................................................... 129 6.8.4.7 Site visits ................................................................................................................................. 129

6.8.5 Phase 4 ............................................................................................................................... 130 6.8.5.1 Integration ............................................................................................................................... 130 6.8.5.2 Overall recommendations ........................................................................................................ 130

7 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................. 130

7.1 ASPIRATIONAL END-STATE SCENARIOS .................................................................................... 130 7.1.1 Moving technology forward ............................................................................................... 130 7.1.2 Urban rail .......................................................................................................................... 131 7.1.3 Regional Rail ...................................................................................................................... 131 7.1.4 High-speed Intercity ........................................................................................................... 131 7.1.5 Ultra-high-speed Intercity .................................................................................................. 132

7.2 PROGNOSIS: LEAP AHEAD ........................................................................................................ 132 7.3 OPENING A MIGRATION PATH ................................................................................................... 132 7.4 SOME CAUTIONS ...................................................................................................................... 133

7.4.1 Potential hazards ............................................................................................................... 133 7.4.2 Phasing-in .......................................................................................................................... 133 7.4.3 Cherry picking .................................................................................................................... 134

- 6 -

8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................... 134

- 7 -

Executive Summary

Introduction

Broad scope

There exists a considerable investment backlog in passenger railways in South Africa. In

addition, there are many fundamental questions regarding the positioning of its passenger

rail technology. It was therefore important to identify, by way of this study, firstly

opportunities where investment could confidently be initiated in the short term, to get up

to speed quickly, and secondly situations where deeper insight was required, or where

substantial preparatory work would be needed, to guide medium- to long term

interventions.

Problem statement

Passenger railway technology in South Africa has stagnated, service delivery has fallen

behind expectations, and competitors have invaded the natural passenger rail market

space. Strict interoperability requirements have impeded entry of new technologies. In

addition, several rail applications in South Africa need to migrate from narrow gauge

track to standard gauge track, to leverage the strengths of contemporary passenger rail

technology. There is no precedent for such railway repositioning anywhere. It was

therefore necessary for this study to develop a way forward from first principles.

A passenger rail technology framework

This study developed a comprehensive framework for passenger rail technology, from

the premise that railways, which are competitive with other transport modes, are

sustainable. It reflects the inherent strengths of rail transport, based on heavy axle load,

high speed, and coupled vehicles. Passenger rail requires careful positioning in urban

settings, because human beings do not make a heavy payload, and speed is relatively

low. It naturally comes into its own over longer distances at high speed. Among other,

the framework indicates areas where rail is inherently weak, where threats from

competitive modes exist, and where alternative guided transport solutions exist.

Application to South Africa

Priority issues

Track gauge underlies several of the present constraints on passenger rail technology, as

well as longer-term opportunities and challenges: The framework provides deep insight

into this topic, and offers suggestions on how to move forward.

Systemic roadblocks, in particular interoperability constraints, have prevented movement

from the status quo. They will need careful evaluation with a view to creating space

within which to implement contemporary passenger rail technology solutions.

Findings

Positioning of passenger rail in South Africa is fundamentally constrained by the trains

currently operated under the Metrorail and Shosholoza Meyl brands. Their technologies

are dated, and have consequently not demanded high performance infrastructure, which

is consequently also dated. Metrorail offers a one-size-fits-all solution, which is

generally not able to match the performance of contemporary higher capacity, lower cost,

and/or faster rail solutions. Shosholoza Meyl is handicapped by limited speed on narrow

- 8 -

gauge track, and cannot differentiate itself competitively from offerings by other

transport modes.

Potential new investment

Urban heavy rail

There are immediate opportunities for investment in contemporary metro rolling stock,

without risk of entering a strategic dead end. This could add capacity to the existing fleet,

and possibly replacing existing stock, thereby increasing mission reliability, and making

services more attractive. Such opportunities could be exploited when stakeholders are

ready, while longer term, more complex, issues in other passenger rail market spaces are

addressed in parallel. Such opportunities must however be qualified regarding signalling:

Maximum capacity requires closely-matched signalling and train performance

characteristics, and contemporary rolling stock could not deliver its full potential under

existing signalling systems.

Given the existing investment backlog, and the need to maximize the impact of new

investment, the existing basic urban narrow gauge track infrastructure can be considered

good for at least another rolling stock generation. After that time, it would be appropriate

to revisit the question of track gauge, to assess whether the relative benefits of standard

gauge, as well as the state of the supply industry, had changed sufficiently to yield a

different answer.

Any new infrastructure-plus-rolling-stock projects, which can operate as standalone

entities, or which have the potential to grow into larger networks, should of course be

built to preferred international standards of track gauge, body width, platform height, and

power supply. This would accelerate introduction of new technology, and concurrently

secure the most competitive pricing for such projects.

Urban light rail and alternatives

At the lower end of the capacity scale, urban rail is increasingly exposed to alternative

guided transport solutions and competitors. In South Africa, bus rapid transit has already

emerged. However, rail fundamentally offers a greener, more permanent mass mobility

solution. Contemporary variants such as Light Rail, Light Metro, and Automated Light

Metro address the capacity market space below Metro, offering safe, efficient solutions.

They warrant attention as South Africa looks to move commuters from road to rail.

Regional rail

Regional rail has the potential to provide a foundation for integrated mass mobility

solutions outside the approximately 35km radius in which metro optimizes the trade-off

between capacity and speed. It is currently a market space dominated by road in South

Africa, because of low rail speed. It is the first level at which standard gauge track would

be required, to support speeds in the range 160-200km/h, to yield reasonable journey

times over longer distances. In the 40-400km range, regional rail has the potential to

serve as backbone for integrated mass mobility solutions, and to provide inter-regional

links.

High-speed rail

High-speed rail, i.e. services at a maximum speed of 200km/h, has limited potential in

South Africa. This is essentially the ultimate development stage of conventional rail,

- 9 -

before it is necessary to provide dedicated infrastructure to advance to the next level,

namely ultra-high-speed rail. However, due to South Africa’s narrow-gauge heritage, in

particular the large number of small-radius curves, high speed would be feasible on very

few routes without substantial reconstruction, including changing to standard gauge

track. Nevertheless, a few suggestions have been made in this report.

Ultra-high-speed rail

Ultra-high-speed rail provides service in the 300-400km/h range on dedicated

infrastructure. The first potential application would be Gauteng-Durban. However, at this

time it seems as if economic viability might be some way off. However, many of South

Africa’s economic peers are already in the ultra-high-speed rail field: A proposal has

been made regarding developing an understanding of what drives adoption of ultra-high-

speed rail in developing economies.

Key recommendations

Examine minimum interoperability requirements carefully, and relax them to the extent

necessary, to create space within which migration to contemporary passenger rail

solutions can take place.

Deal with the question of narrow track gauge. In the market spaces between metro and

ultra-high-speed intercity, progress will in the first instance require accommodation with

Transnet Freight Rail, by dual-gauging, re-gauging, or reallocating track. When those

options do not meet aspirations or requirements, new construction will need to be

considered.

Recognize that rail solutions in general require close matching of infrastructure

(curvature, gradients, signalling, and several others) and train (braking, speed, traction,

and several others) characteristics, to maximize capacity and minimize journey time.

Consider alternatives to existing steel-wheel-on-steel-rail passenger rail technology, such

as rubber-tyred solutions, that allow passenger rail to compete effectively against road

competitors over a wide range of capacities.

Physically separate metro and freight operations, to develop fully the potential of urban

rail, without interference from incompatible trains.

Consider technologies such as automatic train protection and automatic train operation,

to mitigate passenger exposure to undue risk, and to utilize infrastructure and rolling

stock more intensely.

Revisit local content and the state of the supply industry, which aspects will need to

support effective implementation of contemporary rail solutions in South Africa.

Conclusion

The global railway renaissance has generated a range of attractive, competitive mass

mobility solutions that have the potential to restore a meaningful contribution by

passenger rail to South Africa.

By comparison with its legacy passenger rail system, both South Africa’s socio-

economic challenges, and the available technological solutions, are now vastly different.

- 10 -

When integrated with all other possible challenges and routes, the future national mass

mobility solution is likely to lean towards a new departure rather than to an extension of

the past. Contemporary passenger rail technology offers competitive rail positioning that

addresses different opportunities: Its application must therefore lead to outcomes

different from the past. Portions of the legacy may nevertheless be recyclable:

Leveraging them will maximize the return on new investment.

However, one should recognize that many constraints impede their adoption, and that

overcoming them will pose high challenges. South Africa’s back-to-rail aspiration is

achievable if the task is reduced to manageable portions. Clear insight and firm resolve

can guide its realization.

NOTE

The Consultant delivered a Preliminary Report dated January 2009. The content of the

Preliminary Report has been incorporated into the present report. This Final Report

therefore replaces and supersedes the Preliminary Report.

- 11 -

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

Passenger rail in South Africa has drifted far from the role that contemporary rail plays

in countries that have founded their mass mobility task on rail. New investment in

passenger rail in South Africa has all but stalled. Users even go as far as burning

passenger rail assets to vent their frustrations. It is time to reposition passenger rail for

competitiveness and sustainability.

The South African railway situation is globally unique. It is an outcome of slicing and

dicing a monolithic state railway into a freight component and a unified urban/long

distance passenger component. While the freight component is in several respects

uncompetitive and in decline1, passengers have high aspirations and a sympathetic

government. From the perspective of this study, one should thus expect the passenger

component to embrace contemporary passenger rail solutions.

1.2 Problem statement

An accumulation of reasons has caused passenger railway technology in South Africa to

stagnate. Consequently, service delivery has fallen behind expectations, and competitors

have invaded the market space that passenger rail should naturally dominate. Legacy

infrastructure- and rolling assets still bind the passenger and freight components to one

another, impeding development of their respective strengths. Strict interoperability

requirements have proved to be a barrier to entry of new technologies. Many rail

applications in South Africa need to migrate from narrow gauge track to standard gauge

track, to rise to their aspirational and competitiveness challenges by leveraging the

strengths of contemporary passenger rail technology. There is no precedent for such

fundamental railway repositioning anywhere in the world. It was therefore necessary to

develop a way forward from first principles and research findings.

1.3 Objective

The South African Rail Commuter Corporation (SARCC) business strategy states the

objective clearly: Transforming and Positioning Passenger Rail to form the basis of the

Integrated Mass Rapid Public Transport Networks in South Africa (South African Rail,

2008/09). It is a worthy objective: This study therefore set out to provide railway

technological insight that could underpin that strategy. It developed a roadmap to

identify, examine, and understand how to align the challenges of the existing South

African setting with contemporary passenger rail technology, and with sources of such

technology. Where such alignment depends on interaction with freight rail, the report set

out to examine appropriate interface issues. The Consultant structured the methodology,

analysis, findings, and recommendations in this report to provide the Client with high-

level insight regarding passenger rail technology issues to:

Support informed policy decisions,

1 Many reasons underlie this decline. In principle, they are outside the scope of this study. However, the

report recognizes their existence as far as they affect passenger rail technology, and points them out where

appropriate.

- 12 -

If necessary, procure subsequent more detailed studies from local and

international consultants, and

Enable entry to the market for new assets as informed purchaser.

1.4 Study structure

1.4.1 Design

The Consultant proposed to spread the study deliverables over the following four phases:

Phase 1, the subject of this document, is a Framework Report. It outlines

the field of study, and canvasses a range of pertinent passenger rail

technology questions, as well as their generally accepted contemporary

solutions, with reference to the rest of the world, Africa and South Africa.

The Framework Report will provide the Client with a broad appreciation

of the passenger rail technology landscape early in the study, to draw

attention to critical issues, and to decouple the local portion of the study

from the possible international participation envisaged in Phase 3.

Phase 2 was proposed as a Stakeholder Workshop. It was intended to

expose stakeholders to the issues identified in the Framework Report, and

hence to ensure that all pertinent issues for further attention have been

identified, as far as reasonably practical.

Phase 3 was proposed as development of work packages, together with

their terms of reference, to address detailed or specific issues or

opportunities requiring further attention. The intention was to procure

appropriate and competent local and/or international consultants to

undertake the work.

Phase 4 was proposed as integration of the outcomes of Phases 1, 2, and 3

into a final report, which would contain overall recommendations and

conclusions.

At date of this Report, the Consultant had been mandated to deliver Phase 1 of the

Passenger Rail Technology Study.

1.4.2 Funding

South African Rail Commuter Corporation (SARCC), which changed to Passenger Rail

Agency of South Africa (PRASA) during this project, funded the study, as a contribution

to the development of South Africa’s National Transport Master Plan (NATMAP).

1.4.3 Study roadmap

The following diagram illustrates the basic structure of the study. It is intended to give

readers a high-level view of the subject matter, to enable them to then to drill down

quickly into whatever takes their interest.

- 13 -

1.5 Acronyms, definitions, and terminology

The following acronyms, definitions, and terminology clarify or explain terms used in

this Report. Particular railway terms may have different meanings in different countries.

Thus, while many South African railway terms generally are aligned with international

usage, exceptions do exist. Noting that this Report will reason that South Africa should

expose itself to global railway solutions, the objective of this Section is simply to

promote the widest possible understanding of this document, rather than to take issue

with possible differences. It provides readers with a glossary that is widely understood in

the international mass mobility industry.

AAR: Association of American Railroads.

ATP: Automatic Train Protection.

Boundary: The conditions, often vague, always subjectively stipulated,

that define a system and set it apart from its environment.

Broad gauge: Railway track laid to a distance of more than 1435mm

between rails.

BRT: Bus Rapid Transit.

Capacity: System throughput, usually expressed in passengers per

direction per hour or passengers/direction/hour.

Car: A vehicle in a fixed-formation train.

Coach: A trailing (i.e. non-motored) vehicle coupled into a train that is

hauled by a locomotive.

- 14 -

Contemporary: Solutions and technologies that leading system

integrators currently offer in competitive markets—they range

from state-of-the-art to well-proven.

DMU: Diesel multiple unit. See also Multiple Unit Set.

EMU: Electric multiple unit. See also Multiple Unit Set.

Entropy: A measure of energy expended in a system that does no useful

work, which tends to decrease the system’s organizational order.

Environment: The context within which a system exists. It is composed

of all things external to the system, and it includes everything that

may affect the system, or which the system may affect.

Fixed formation train: A train consisting of a specific number of cars (or

vehicles), with braking, propulsion, auxiliary, and other equipment

distributed over the cars in such a way that they cannot operate

separately from one another.

Heavy rail: A steel-wheel-on-steel-rail transportation system that uses

relatively heavy vehicles and infrastructure—it has less routing

flexibility than Light Rail, as it needs wider curves and does not

run in streets.

Interchange: A location where two transport operators meet, perform

some kind of exchange, and go on their separate ways again.

Interface: A shared boundary across which two or more interacting

systems exchange energy, material or information.

Intermodal: Traffic that uses two or more transport modes between

origin and destination.

Interoperability: The ability of diverse systems and organizations to

work together. One may use the term in a systems engineering

sense, or in the broad sense of recognizing social, political, and

organizational factors that affect system-to-system performance.

Interoperate: Two or more systems working together by allowing one

another’s equipment, such as trains, to operate on one another’s

infrastructure.

Intraoperability: A property that refers to the ability of particular

subsystems to contribute functionality interchangeably to diverse

systems or to diverse supra-systems.

Legacy: Something carried over or inherited from a former dispensation.

Light Metro: A light steel-wheel-on-steel-rail transportation system built

on completely segregated right of way, where necessary with

elevated- and/or underground sections, and signaled- or automated

operation.

Light Rail: A transportation system that operates relatively light steel-

wheel-on-steel-rail self-propelled vehicles. The technology is

basically the same as that of trams, although light rail systems

usually operate on segregated rights of way rather than streets for

most of their length, and so provide faster service than trams.

- 15 -

Low floor vehicle: A relatively new type of vehicle with floor level at

about the same height as street curbs and low level platforms at

stops: This makes it easy for people (especially those with

impaired mobility, baby carriages, bicycles, and/or shopping bags)

to enter and exit safely and swiftly.

LRV: Light rail vehicle.

Metro: A high speed (compared to other transport modes in the same

corridor), high capacity, high frequency urban rail system that runs

entirely on exclusive tracks on its own dedicated right of way

(underground, on elevated structures and/or at grade), usually with

level entry platforms.

Migration: The process by which contemporary- or emerging systems, or

technologies, displace legacy systems or technologies.

Mobility: Ease of moving about, often specifically meaning access to a

vehicle for travel.

Multiple unit set: A fixed-formation train composed of a specific number

of cars, with a high proportion of motored axles, usually 50-100%.

Narrow gauge: Railway track laid to a distance of less than 1435mm

between rails2.

Open system: A system in a state of continuous interaction with its

environment.

PRASA: Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa.

Rapid transit: See Metro.

Regional rail: Rail services between towns and cities, and sometimes

between regions, rather than purely linking major population hubs

in the way inter-city rail does.

Riding quality: Lateral, vertical, and longitudinal accelerations that

determine passenger riding comfort and safety against derailment:

They include vibration acceleration, steady lateral acceleration,

and jerk.

SARCC: South African Rail Commuter Corporation.

Standard gauge: Railway track laid to a distance of 1435mm between

rails.

Subsystem: A major component of a system.

Supra-system: An entity that is composed of a number of component

systems organized in interacting relationships.

Sustainability: The ability of a system to maintain itself with no loss of

function for extended periods.

2 In South Africa, the distance is 1067mm. In the rest of Africa, it is mostly 1000mm or 1067mm.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_transport

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-city_rail

- 16 -

System integrator: An entity that specializes in bringing together

component subsystems into a whole, and ensuring that those

subsystems function together.

System: A system comprises all elements of interest that have a

meaningful relation to one another. One could regard a complete

railway as a system. A system may even extend beyond the

physical railway, for example to road-based feeder services that

support a passenger railway. Sometimes, major elements of a

complete railway are also called systems, for example the

overhead traction power system, or the signaling system.

TFR: Transnet Freight Rail.

UAR: Union of African Railways.

UIC: International Union of Railways (English), Union Internationale

des Chemins de Fer (French).

VAL: Automatic Light Vehicle (English), Vehicule Automatique Legere

(French).

Wheelset: Two wheels mounted on an axle. They may be of fixed gauge

or variable gauge.

1.6 Study methodology

1.6.1 Significance of the global railway renaissance

A global railway renaissance has advanced and transformed passenger rail technology

rapidly over the last two or three decades, across the entire spectrum of passenger rail

services, from low-speed urban- to ultra-high-speed intercity. Although outside the terms

of reference of this study, the railway renaissance has similarly transformed freight rail

technology: Where freight- and passenger rail technology attributes mutually influence

one another, this study also recognized relevant aspects of freight rail technology.

Perceptive South Africans are aware of the visible achievements of the global railway

renaissance: Through direct exposure, as well as through the media, they have

recognized the existence of railways that may be described as Assertive, Progressive, and

Enlightened, and some of the attributes that set them apart from railways that may be

described as Insecure3. By comparison, it is evident that unfulfilled expectations and

opportunities exist with regard to passenger rail in South Africa. While there have been

sporadic attempts to fulfill these expectations, such as the Metroblitz intercity trains and

the New Generation suburban trains in the 1980s, such technologies failed to take root

and flourish.

While it is easy to look over the fence at the achievements of passenger rail technology

in other countries, admiration and envy cannot lead to understanding of why passenger

rail technology in South Africa has fallen behind. A study of passenger railway

technology in isolation is thus unlikely to deliver adequately penetrating insight into the

3 The existence of railways with Assertive, Progressive, Enlightened, and Insecure corporate citizenships

was found in research by Van der Meulen and Möller (2008b).

- 17 -

present passenger railway impasse in South Africa: Prima facie, it appears to be as much

structural as technological.

This study therefore set out not only to catalogue and to explain contemporary-

and emerging passenger railway technologies, and to match them to

opportunities in South Africa. It concurrently delved into why the global railway

renaissance has not yet touched passenger rail technology in South Africa:

Where appropriate, it points out non-technical impediments. Only in this way, can

one interpret and project the significance of the global railway renaissance for

South Africa.

1.6.2 The systems approach as an analytic toolset

1.6.2.1 General systems theory

General systems theory is a useful toolset for the study of complex systems in nature,

society, and science. Railways and their competitive- and symbiotic transport modes in a

specific country setting are a perfect example. The systems approach provides a way to

organize and to analyze what may otherwise seem to be an incomprehensible assortment

of complex issues. To introduce the approach, note the following attributes of a system:

It is a dynamic and complex whole.

It interacts as a structured functional unit.

Energy, material, and information flow among its various elements.

Some amount of disorder (or entropy) is present in any system.

It is situated within an environment.

Energy, material, and information may also flow from and to the

environment.

It is structured hierarchically: It may consist of sub-systems, and the

environment itself may be a supra-system containing several systems.

One may define the boundary between a system and its environment

as narrowly or as widely, as is appropriate for a particular purpose.

The following notion illustrates the energy-, material-,

and information flow among the various components of a

passenger railway system. Think of a railway, and

symbiotic transport modes such as buses and taxis,

interworking conveniently with one another under a

national public transport smart card dispensation,

exchanging passengers at stations or termini, operating

rolling stock on their respective infrastructures, and

clearing payments to each participant. Such a flow is clearly reflected in the language of

railways, in which the terms interchange and interoperate are of the essence.

1.6.2.2 Types of systems

Systems may be functional or dysfunctional: Work on corporate pathology has

contributed valuable insight into the latter condition (Gharajedaghi, 1983): It found that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_system

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

- 18 -

systems adapt to their environment in terms of three models, namely mechanistic,

organismic, and socio- cultural, typified in simple terms as follows:

Mechanistic systems are relatively closed. The amount of disorder, or

entropy, increases within them over time. Without creative ability to

respond to their environment, mechanistic systems must eventually break

down. The general condition of passenger railways in South Africa and,

for that matter, freight railways too, is symptomatic of decreasing

organizational order. It illustrates, in a railway setting, how institutional

arrangements have established and entrenched a closed system, leading

predictably to an unsustainable outcome.

Organismic systems are open to their environment. Their basic limitation

is failure to recognize that a social system exists on a higher and more

complex level. Their outcome over time is fixed by regulating their

structure. The emergence of high-speed intercity trains in Japan, and of

heavy haul- and double-stack container trains in the United States,

exemplifies changes in technology and liberalization of institutional

arrangements, which stimulated changes in railway competiveness. They

illustrate, in a railway setting, how rail’s competitive strengths, relative to

other transport modes, determined equifinal4 market share outcomes.

Socio-cultural systems are also open to their environment. Members

create, or recreate, their system structure in terms of a shared vision.

While one of several outcomes is possible at the outset, only one

ultimately emerges—through the dialectic interaction5 of opposing though

concurrent processes. South Africa’s transition from a closed apartheid

society to an open democratic society is arguably one of the most striking

modern examples of a socio-cultural system in action. It is illustrated, in a

railway setting, by structural changes currently underway in Europe’s

railways: Dialectic interaction among many stakeholders is transforming

an assortment of unsustainable, closed, national railways to one of several

possible, though presently unpredictable, sustainable outcomes that will

rest on dynamic competition among continental-scale infrastructure- and

train operators.

Note that, although one system type dominates real settings, elements of one or both of

the other system types may also be present.

1.6.2.3 Validity of the systems approach as toolset

The foregoing brief but accurate explanation of several systemic outcomes, in the South

African railway setting as well as in the global railway setting, gives confidence that

general systems theory is a valid toolset for examining South Africa’s passenger railway

status quo, and for indicating subsequent remedial interventions.

4 Equifinal means that the outcome is the same, regardless of the migration path that leads to it.

5 One can pair the modalities of dialectic interaction as integration and differentiation, entropic and neg-

entropic, morphostatic and morphogenetic, competition and cooperation, generation and distribution, and

creation and recreation. In plain language, dialectic interaction tests the truth of opinions, by discussion,

regarding the existence or action of opposing social forces.

- 19 -

South Africa’s existing passenger railways seem to meet few stakeholder aspirations,

expectations, and requirements. Furthermore, there is no empirical relation, based on

recent experience, between investment quantum and market uptake. The country

therefore can have no idea what the mass mobility landscape will look like after, say,

half a century of high-quality passenger rail transport. Market share- or modal split

outcomes projected from the status quo could therefore vary within wide and astounding

limits.

To illustrate, displacement of European domestic air transport by high-speed intercity

trains could not have been, and was not, predicted as an outcome of Japan’s introduction

of its Shinkansen in 1964. Similarly, development of double-stack container trains,

which have revolutionized container transport for railways, could not have been, and was

not, projected as an outcome of the 1980 United States’ Staggers Act. With perfect

hindsight, both outcomes were of course clearly predictable by the systems approach.

However, one can predict that a closed system will eventually degenerate into disorder

and stop functioning. Similarly, one can predict that the outcome of socio-cultural

systemic adaptation, whatever that outcome turns out to be, will be right on the money.

This study will therefore use the systems approach as an analytic toolset, to develop

insight into the drivers of passenger rail technology, and to indicate interventions that

will support migration to a sustainable outcome for South Africa.

1.6.2.4 Applying the systems approach to a passenger rail technology study in South

Africa

Before defining the boundary or boundaries, of the system or systems, relevant to

passenger rail technology in South Africa, consider first which systems may be involved:

Mass mobility systems comprising all transport modes—at municipal-

, provincial-, and national level, possibly even at international level—

for the people of South Africa and potentially also for its neighbours.

Competing-, contending-, and/or symbiotic transport modal systems—

minibus taxis at municipal level, airlines at national level, rail freight

vying for capacity on a shared network at all levels, and so on.

Rolling stock- and infrastructure systems such as consulting services,

financing, operations and maintenance, manufacture and so on, which

one could source globally, extend far beyond the borders of South

Africa.

Several different system views, and their corresponding system boundaries, can therefore

exist, or even co-exist, depending on the topic under consideration and the scope of

inquiry. This study will therefore implicitly define ad-hoc boundaries appropriate to the

issues under examination.

- 20 -

2 The status quo

2.1 In South Africa

2.1.1 Public passenger transport systems

2.1.1.1 Applying the systems approach

Taking a systems view on existing public passenger transport in South Africa shows that

many subsystems are present. They include not only the various transport modes, such as

buses, taxis, and trains, as well as their respective long-haul and short-haul subsystems,

but also a range of similar subsystems replicated across the entire country. Such

integration as there is among modes often appears to be spontaneous. It is therefore

evident that non-integration of transport modes constitutes a fundamental public

transport issue in South Africa.

Spontaneous initiatives to provide service do of course indicate that fundamental

economic drivers are alive and well, and should therefore be valued. However, if

spontaneous solutions respond to demands that formally integrated solutions could or

should meet more efficiently, then it is necessary to revisit the institutional arrangements.

Evidence of spontaneous solutions substituting for more efficient solutions, such as the

phenomenon of ubiquitous taxis punching above their fighting weight in the national

transport task, clearly illustrates that an organismic system is at work: The outcome is

contained in the system structure, in this case the existing institutional arrangements that

regulate the public passenger transport industry.

Recall that the basic limitation of organismic systems is their failure to recognize

that a social system exists on a higher and more complex level. Thus, from the

perspective of passenger railway technology, South Africa should revisit the

institutional arrangements that allow- or drive implementation of passenger

railway technology, to engage the social system in socio-cultural adaptation.

2.1.1.2 Learning from the systems approach

Vibrant systems, including public transport and its passenger rail subset, routinely

implement new applications and technologies. The preceding process of consultation

among stakeholders exposes decision makers to values and trade-offs among potential

users. In South Africa, such dialectical inquiry in respect of passenger rail technology

issues, and by implication positioning of passenger rail relative to alternative- or

competitive modes, appears circumscribed. This has resulted in an apparent disconnect

between global availability of good passenger rail solutions, and their local

implementation.

South Africa would do well to flesh out its vision what passenger rail could

contribute to the national mass mobility task in an ideal dispensation, and then

set about migrating to that vision. While the requisite socio-cultural adaptation

process will not necessarily lead to an outcome preferred by sponsors, it will

produce a robust outcome.

- 21 -

2.1.1.3 Legacy systems

Railways are long-lived, so their technology status at any time reflects the history that

shaped them. Among other, colonialism marked South Africa’s railways. They started

out on standard gauge, but administrators copped out and changed to narrow gauge when

they encountered mountains en route to the interior. Many standard gauge railways,

which successfully overcame terrain that is more challenging, bear witness to their

mistaken call.

The shortcomings of narrow gauge encumber railway competitiveness and sustainability.

This report therefore refers to them frequently. They have been addressed

comprehensively in a parallel report on track gauge (National Transport, 2009a). For the

convenience of readers, pertinent track gauge issues are explained briefly with respect to

the fundamental drivers of passenger railway competitiveness in §4.2.1.5.

There are of course other legacy technologies as well, many of them simply reflecting

the time when they were acquired, and others reflecting the inability of uncompetitive

railways to exit their downward spiral of unsustainability. One way or another they have

also had an incisive influence on the status quo of passenger railway technology in South

Africa. The report will mention them as appropriate.

2.1.1.4 Realizing the vision

In countries that have sufficient population to support public passenger rail transport, and

South Africa is one of them, rail should provide the national mass mobility backbone.

While rail typically requires the highest capital investment, it can deliver high capacity,

low cost service in corridors with sufficient traffic volume. For precisely the reason it

requires the highest capital investment, it also represents the firmest commitment by the

relevant transport authority. That commitment should attract and anchor commercial-,

industrial-, and residential development, which should in turn support symbiotic

opportunities for lower volume, lower-cost, feeder services by other transport modes.

Ideally, seamless through ticketing should also be part of the solution.

The overall vision has already been clearly stated: Provide safe, reliable, effective,

efficient, and fully integrated transport operations and infrastructure which will best

meet the needs of freight and passenger customers at improving levels of service and

cost in a fashion which supports government strategies for economic and social

development whilst being environmentally and economically sustainable (White Paper,

1996). Facilitating passenger rail’s step-by-step contribution to such an integrated

transport vision must rest on a dispensation that responds to and supports it.

While institutional arrangements are outside the scope of this study, it does

provide a framework for passenger rail technologies that can support whatever

passenger rail services South Africa can envision, and its institutional

arrangements can facilitate.

2.1.2 Urban rail assets (Metrorail)

2.1.2.1 Infrastructure

The present PRASA network was created by dividing the former monolithic South

African Transport Services railway network between Spoornet and SARCC in 1990. At

that time, network elements were assigned to the dominant user. While major portions of

- 22 -

their respective networks enjoy exclusive use, there remain shared portions where

interoperation between PRASA and TFR is required. No investment in systemic change

has taken place since 1990, so all legacy infrastructure characteristics remain today. The

only change has been Spoornet’s re-branding as Transnet Freight Rail. The inherited

interoperability requirement imposes the following constraints on passenger trains:

Signalling must accommodate trains with the longest headway, as

determined by the longest braking distance, namely vacuum-braked

freight trains6, and occasionally vacuum-braked mainline passenger

trains. However, high performance multiple-unit passenger trains can

support materially shorter braking distances and headways. The latter

cannot realize their minimum headway potential on shared routes,

which either sacrifices passenger capacity, or increases the length of

trains required to deliver a given passenger capacity.

General freight wagons have an axle load of 20 tonnes, while Class

6E/6E1 locomotives have an axle load of 22 tonnes. The new Class

19E locomotive has an axle load in the 25-26 tonne range. These axle

loads are higher than required for passenger stock and passenger

routes. To the extent that general freight trains must interoperate on

passenger infrastructure, structural and maintenance requirements

would be adversely affected.

TFR’s de facto vehicle profile, based on certain steam locomotives

(South African Transport, 1980d) imposes the most restrictive

dimensions on fixed equipment in the space immediately above rail

level. This precludes providing raised guard rails at diamond crossings

and slips, which in turn imposes a speed restriction of 30km/h on such

special trackwork.

2.1.2.2 Trains

South Africa introduced electric suburban trains, the 1M generation7, on the Cape Town-

Simonstown line in 1928. Their configuration reflected

the locomotive hauled suburban stock of the time: One

electric motor coach hauling a specified number of

coaches simply replaced one steam locomotive hauling a

specified number of coaches. The electric motor coaches,

which had a driving compartment and an electrical

equipment compartment at one end of the vehicle, were

in effect small locomotives that also carried some

passengers. The trailer coaches had no functionality other

than carrying passengers.

6 TFR has long planned to convert all its freight trains to air brakes, which have significantly shorter

braking distances than trains with vacuum brakes. However, it has yet to implement fully its plans in this

regard.

7 Each generation has sub-series, such as 5M2A, but the fundamental generations suffice for the purpose of

this report.

- 23 -

The foregoing configuration still holds for Metrorail today, i.e. electric motor coaches

hauling a non-associated number of trailer coaches. Trains have at least two motor

coaches, one at each end to provide a driving cab8. Current train configurations are:

6 trailer coaches + 2 motor coaches (25% motored axles)




The proportion of motored axles is not constant, so train performance can vary in the

ratio of trailing vehicles to motor coaches. Although the traction motors are fairly sized

at ≈230kW, the low proportion of motored axles means that performance must lag

contemporary multiple unit trains that typically have 50-100% motored axles. The

vacuum braking is not load-weighed, so retardation rate will vary as the passenger load

varies. The worst case, namely fully laden trains, determines headway.

Metrorail commuter trains are much longer than most metro trains elsewhere in the

world. All other things being equal, throughput capacity is almost directly proportional

to train length. It appears that train length was used to compensate for substandard

acceleration and deceleration (Van der Voort, 1980). This results in very long stations

and peaky passenger flow. The preferred solution nowadays is to use shorter trains at

shorter headways, for greater convenience and smoother passenger flow.

No new rolling stock has been built since the mid 1980s. The last was the 5M generation,

introduced in the early 1960s, followed by the 6M, 7M, 8M, and 9M New Generation

projects that did not achieve large scale fleet deployment. The current 10M upgrade of

the 5M generation achieves lower maintenance and better appearance, but even the 10Ms

fall short of many contemporary requirements (see §5.5.2.2 for details).

Metrorail trains operate on 3kV dc electrified infrastructure owned predominantly by

PRASA. Metrorail’s Eastern Cape Region is an exception—services there are operated

on 25kV ac electrified infrastructure owned by TFR, who also provides locomotives to

haul Metrorail trailer coaches.

2.1.2.3 Life expectancy

Rolling stock: The current Metrorail rolling stock life cycle plan spans

fifty-four years. It comprises three nine-year general overhaul cycles,

followed by an upgrade. The cycle is then repeated, after which the

vehicles ought to be scrapped. The diagram below depicts the cycle. The

6/7/8M stock represents only a small portion of the fleet, and is therefore

excluded from the present discussion.

8 Formerly, some short trains were worked in push-pull mode, with a motor coach at one end, and a driving

trailer at the other end.

- 24 -

The need to keep the vehicles roadworthy drives the general overhaul

cycle. Among other, general overhauls restore corrosion damage that can

weaken coach structures, posing risks

both in normal service where they carry

heavy peak loads, and in collisions where

they need to protect passengers from

injury or death. The illustration at right

shows a coach structure that failed under

impact. The carbon steel used in 5M stock

is susceptible to corrosion, due to ingress

of water, or to operation in coastal environments. From the diagram, it is

evident that coaches need to be replaced at around 200 per year merely to

keep up with life expiry, not to mention additional stock to expand

services to and reduce the average age of the fleet. A large problem is

clearly approaching.

Nowadays, a fifty-four year life cycle is arguably too long, for the

following reasons. First, in a competitive global market that continuously

develops new technologies, rolling stock performance keeps rising, while

real life cycle costs keep decreasing. An operator that is out of the market

cannot keep up with and benefit from technological advances: Over time,

such operators become uncompetitive. They then burden the economy in

which they are set, through either being unable to maintain equipment,

paying over the odds to do so, and either way consuming more energy

than they should. Second, in a growing economy, passenger expectations

rise. Passengers become dissatisfied with obsolete equipment, and vote

with their feet for other public transport modes or for private cars. Third,

heavy workshops must be maintained to undertake the overhauls and

upgrades: While that might be good for job creation, it could prejudice

national competitiveness in a global economy. Taken together, these

drivers encourage modal shift in the wrong direction, namely from rail to

road.

Contemporary rolling stock uses aluminium or stainless steel structures.

They are designed to be maintained in running depots over their entire life

- 25 -

cycle. While that cycle is usually shorter than fifty-four years, it may

include a mid-life upgrade of power electronics and control systems,

because competitive developments in those fields currently render such

equipment obsolete before the mechanical equipment has reached the end

of its useful life.

Infrastructure: Basic right-of-way is generally sustainable over a long

life span: The world’s first metro, London Underground, is still going

strong after nearly 150 years. Metro speeds are relatively low, so even

tight curves are not unduly problematic, other than from a maintenance

perspective. Track, and electrification, can be renewed as required.

However, signalling and communication equipment has the shorter life

cycle associated with electronics- and information technologies. Noting

the age of signalling installations in South Africa, much of it would have

little or no book value. It generally cannot support optimum performance

from contemporary rolling stock, and overlaid automatic train protection

would be false economy. As contemporary trains are rolled out, it would

be appropriate to replace signalling and communications equipment with

new equipment of the same generation.

2.1.3 Long-distance rail assets (Shosholoza Meyl)


Long-distance main line infrastructure is owned exclusively by TFR. Indeed, the

Shosholoza Meyl long-distance passenger operation was a brand of Spoornet until April

2008, when it and its rolling assets were transferred to SARCC. This left the long-

distance rail network with the dominant operator TFR, and Shosholoza Meyl as a

passenger train operator on TFR infrastructure. In this respect, one can draw a parallel

with Amtrak in the United States and the Class 1 railroads that provide it with track

access outside the Northeast Corridor9.

Shosholoza Meyl offers services in two classes, Economy and Tourist. Most radiate from

Johannesburg, to Cape Town, Bloemfontein, Durban, East London, Kimberley,

Komatipoort, Musina, and Port Elizabeth. In addition, there are services between Cape

Town and Durban, and between Bloemfontein and Kimberley (Shosholoza Meyl,

undated). Key infrastructure aspects of routes on which Shosholoza Meyl operates

follow:

Alignment. The alignment of original portions of the abovementioned

routes dates from the beginning of main line railways in South Africa,

namely the 1880s and 1890s. Some portions, particularly in mountainous

terrain, were upgraded from time to time, until the 1950s and 1960s. After

that, only Volksrust-Newcastle was upgraded, and the Hex River Tunnel

was built, both in the 1980s. Even at that time, commercial high speed

was not on the South African railway technology horizon. The Volksrust-

Newcastle section thus has many curves in the 700-849m bracket, rated

9 Amtrak owns the Northeast Corridor, which connects Boston with Washington DC.

- 26 -

by TFR for 90km/h. The Hex River tunnel itself is straight, but it serves a

route that has many curves limited to 90km/h or less.

The 90km/h maximum speed of vacuum braked passenger trains has thus

left its mark on the speed potential of South Africa’s railways.

Fortuitously, a few sections passed through comparatively easy terrain,

where the builders were able to provide mostly wide curves. These

sections are:

On the Johannesburg-Cape Town route:

o Dean-Content 228km

o Modderriver-Houtkraal 181km

o De Aar-Barnard 123km

o Total 532km

On the Johannesburg-Polokwane route:

o Bon Accord-Eersbewoond 96km

o Modimolle-Makopane 86km

o Sandrivier-Polokwane 18km

o Total 200km

The above sections would be good for 130km/h on the existing 1067mm

track gauge, if appropriately maintained. If re-gauged to standard gauge,

the sections mentioned on the Johannesburg-Cape Town route would be

good for 150-160km/h, and those on the Johannesburg-Polokwane route

for 140-150km/h (National Transport, 2009f). Note that the curves within

the sections mentioned are not all suitable for higher speeds: It was

assumed that any general speed increase would require re-alignment of

several isolated10

low-speed curves, to obtain clear high-speed runs over

meaningful distances.

Smaller portions of other routes not mentioned above would also be

suitable for speeds higher than those authorized at present. However,

unless a meaningful distance is available, the journey time saving might

not justify the cost of implementing high-speed over short distances.

Noting that the routes presented here represent the best potential

for higher speed in South Africa, one must conclude that higher

speed on other existing routes would challenge engineers, and

possibly even require new alignments.

Electrification: The routes on which Shosholoza Meyl trains run are all

electrified at either 3kV dc or 25kV ac. All currently also support freight

trains, so electrification infrastructure should have no difficulty in

supplying sufficient power to passenger trains.

10 Although isolated, they are generally low-speed because a relatively small radius was used to negotiate

natural obstacles such as water courses and water sheds. Realigning them may be expensive.

- 27 -

Train authorization: Routes of interest for long distance passenger trains

are provided with either centralized traffic control or track warrant

control. TFR’s freight trains typically run at maximum speeds of 60km/h

(for vacuum brakes) or 80km/h (for air brakes).

Where centralized traffic control with colour-light signaling is installed,

warning signals were spaced at fixed distances from stop signals in older

systems, and notionally at braking distance in later systems. Braking

distances can vary materially among different train types: Signals

notionally spaced at braking distance were designed for trains with the

longest braking distances, usually vacuum-braked freight trains11

. A

maximum braking distance of 1200m has been deemed proper, but where

train speed is lower than maximum permissible, for example on up

gradients, some signals have been spaced at less than 1200m. In practice,

the foregoing arrangement leaves residual risks that are mitigated by a

combination of train driver road knowledge, and route- and train-specific

instructions. Such mitigation measures are of course fallible.

Track warrant control issues movement authority to a train driver, to a

specific point only, by radio. All contingent safety risks are mitigated by

train driver road knowledge and route- and train-specific instructions.

Once again, such mitigation measures are fallible.

High-speed passenger trains are relatively less sensitive to gradient, so

their braking distances are more consistent, whatever the track profile.

Nevertheless, signaling designed to TFR’s 1200m braking distance does

not provide an attractive foundation for high-speed passenger service12

.

At retardation rates that respect passenger comfort, around 1m/s2, a

1200m braking distance would limit speed to around 150km/h, while at

200km/h around 2200m braking distance would be required. This aspect

should be considered in conjunction with any speed increases

contemplated.

Note also that, of the TFR routes on which Shosholoza Meyl trains

currently operate, only Johannesburg-Bloemfontein and Johannes-

burg-Durban are double tracked. The remaining routes are either

entirely, or largely, single tracked. Single track can accommodate

substantial freight volumes, and usually some passenger traffic as

well, if the speed differential between freight and passenger trains is

not excessive. If mainlines were to be re-gauged or dual gauged to

standard gauge to support higher speed passenger trains13, the

11 Note that vacuum brakes numerically dominate TFR’s present freight wagon fleet.

12 For context, note that US infrastructure generally permits speeds up to 127km/h, except in the Northeast

Corridor, where 241km/h (150 miles/hour) is permitted. US freight train braking distance is of the order of

2500m, which allows sufficient braking distance for passenger trains running at 127km/h, or even higher if

it were permitted.

13 Cogent reasons exist why standard gauge track would benefit freight traffic , but they are outside the

scope of this study.

- 28 -

speed differential between freight and passenger trains would

increase dramatically14. This would reduce line capacity equally

dramatically, even if sophisticated signalling and dynamic

scheduling aids were to be used.

To summarize, South African long-distance passenger rail infrastructure attributes have

become tightly entangled with corresponding rolling stock- and train attributes. To

upgrade rolling stock performance without corresponding infrastructure upgrading is

unlikely to deliver a satisfactory outcome.

2.1.3.2 Trains

As in the case of urban rail, the basic design of long-distance passenger trains in South

Africa has not changed much since their inception.

Coaching stock: First, vestibules replaced open balconies, and then steel

bodies replaced wooden bodies. Existing vehicles are built of steel, which

provides acceptable crashworthiness15

, but requires routine heavy repair

to mitigate corrosion. Secondary suspension16

is still by means of steel

springs, whereas good riding quality demands air suspension as is

commonplace elsewhere17

. With limited exceptions, power for passenger

amenities (lighting and water raising, but not heating and air conditioning)

is drawn from axle-driven generators. Heating is by steam from head-end

steam heat vans, which are ineffective on long trains. Air conditioning is a

rarity, so comfort and cleanliness suffer. Speed is low, so journey times

are long, in turn requiring stops to refill water tanks, which further

lengthens journey time. Vacuum-operated tread braking does not support

high speed, a factor that is not particularly noticeable now, because

equally limited infrastructure masks the issue.

Locomotives: The Class 6E/6E1 workhorse electric locomotives, which

dominate the existing Shosholoza Meyl

fleet, were conceived as improved

performance Class 5E1 locomotives. The

Class 5E1s were in turn direct

technological descendents of the first

Class 1E introduced in 1924, shown at

right. The Class 6E/6E1 resistance-

controlled starting procedure, series- and

parallel connected traction motors, weak

14 Please note that, other things being equal, heavy freight trains on standard gauge track do not run

inherently faster than on narrow gauge track. On the other hand, light freight trains that might run faster on

standard gauge, such as in Europe, are not competitive against road transport.

15 Provided that the structure is not corroded.

16 Secondary suspension is located between coach bodies and the bogies that run on the rails. It needs to be

soft, so that it does not excite unpleasant vibrations in long, lightweight coaches. Soft suspension also

gives passengers a good ride.

17 Air suspension has been used in South Africa—first on the Blue Train in 1972, then on the Metroblitz

and New Generation suburban stock in the 1980s.

- 29 -

field ―high‖ speed control, and separately excited regenerative braking,

were state-of-the-art 85 years ago18

, but are an anachronism today. Even

the Class 7Es on routes electrified at 25kV ac, which use modern solid-

state power electronics, are now 30 years old.

Class 6E/6E1 locomotives have a 2250kW power output, and a 110km/h

maximum speed. Their mission reliability is now questionable, and they

are frequently deployed two in multiple to provide redundancy. During

the 40 years since their introduction, passenger locomotives have

advanced substantially. For passenger trains that still use locomotives

(many contemporary passenger trains are multiple units), power output is

in the range 4500-6500kW, and 200km/h capability is taken for granted.

Single locomotives typically haul trains, because mission reliability is

impeccable, and redundancy is unnecessary.

The Blue Train is a well-known, exemplary exception to

the above situation. Setting aside luxury appointments in

the present context, it features several contemporary

essentials, such as air conditioning, air-operated disc

brakes, air suspension with load weighing, on-board

electricity generator, tight-lock couplers, and wheelslide

control. Its riding quality is exceptionally high, which

demonstrates that low-speed, single-deck, trains can

work well on narrow gauge track.

2.1.3.3 Life expectancy

Rolling Stock: Existing Shosholoza Meyl coaches were built in the same plant at the

same time using the same technology as the 5M commuter coaches. In addition to the

technical obsolescence mentioned in §2.1.3.2, their remaining useful life is therefore also

threatened by the same corrosion problem. It is therefore opportune to consider whether

traditional long distance passenger rail has any role in future mass mobility in South

Africa. The reader is referred to §6.6.2 for recommendations in this regard. Locomotive

structures are heavy, and corrosion is a lesser problem: Their basic technology is fairly

robust, but obsolete, ineffective, and inefficient. Their life could be prolonged if

necessary, therefore a decision on locomotives for mainline passenger trains should

follow from whatever decision is taken in respect of coaches.

Infrastructure: The situation regarding infrastructure is different, because TFR owns

most of it, with Shosholoza Meyl trains operating under an access arrangement. It will

therefore be necessary for future regional- and intercity passenger rail positioning to

recognize TFR’s plans and strategies, and either go along with them, or diverge where

there is no synergy. In principle, right-of-way is sustainable well into the future:

However, its relevance to contemporary passenger train technology will likely be the

dominant consideration that drives passenger rail infrastructure decisions.

18 That makes them technological contemporaries of the Model T Ford (1908-1927)!

- 30 -

2.1.4 Expectations

Except for the tourist train market, which necessarily must play in the global league, the

status quo largely does not satisfy the expectations of South African rail passengers or,

more importantly, prospective passengers who will ultimately nurture the rail industry to

take its rightful place in the national mass mobility task. The following reasonable

expectations (South African Rail, 2008/09) should inform the way forward regarding

selection of appropriate passenger rail technology:

Safety

Speed

Reliability

Convenience

Cleanliness

Affordability

This study recognizes that passenger public transport expectations have already been

extensively documented. It therefore takes them as read, and will henceforth take a

delivery perspective on passenger rail technology, i.e. what technologies should

stakeholders leverage to start transforming the passenger rail system? The ultimate match

between expectations and delivery must of course be made through diligent economic

analysis.

2.1.5 Opportunity knocks

Passenger rail progress in South Africa has been interrupted for several generations,

human and technological. Many of its citizens have no idea what good rail service is, nor

what it can contribute to society and to the economy. Rail does not feature significantly

in their frame of reference, because a near rail-less environment has informed their

perceptions. In the mean time, particularly since economic globalization in the 1990s,

contemporary rail solutions, and their supporting technologies, have become highly

nuanced. They now reflect rail’s aggressive competitiveness in several very specific

market spaces. Intense competition throughout the global railway industry has stripped

preconceived constraints away, leading to vibrant interaction with societies who are

willing to entertain contemporary rail.

By contrast, in the monolithic19

railways of former times, neither differentiation of

solutions nor diversity of suppliers was encouraged. Indeed, the opposite approach was

usually imposed, as is clearly visible in the status quo. Hence, passenger railway

technology in South Africa is still weighed down by requirements to be backwardly

compatible with equipment, practices, and standards that have long ceased to be relevant

to contemporary mass mobility. While interoperability, to local standards, over the whole

passenger fleet has been rigorously maintained, one crucial, unintended, consequence is

that both urban- and long-distance passenger rolling stock fleets are now way off

contemporary best practice. Unsurprisingly, the undemanding rolling stock has had the

19 Monolithic in railway context means that all operations, whatever their purpose, technology, market, or

other differentiating attribute, were placed in a single entity—one country, one railway.

- 31 -

knock-on effect of failing to stimulate high-performance infrastructure. All told, an

entirely predictable closed-system outcome.

Noting the generally high age, obsolete technology, and tired condition of many

passenger rail assets, South Africa has never had a more opportune time to

transform and position passenger rail to form the basis of integrated mass rapid

public transport networks (South African Rail, 2008/09). Refurbishment or

replacing with the same again, will not cut it: The country needs to migrate to

contemporary passenger rail technology.

2.2 In Africa

2.2.1 Africa, business destination

Time, a respected periodical for contextualizing significant events and world trends, in

the cover story of its recent Annual Special Issue, reported on 10 Ideas Changing the

World Right Now. Regarding one of the ten, Africa, Business Destination, it said the

following (Africa, business, 2009):

―Africa is becoming a business destination.

According to OECD, foreign investment overtook foreign aid for the

first time.

The private sector is the key driver.

Africa offers more opportunity than any place in the world.

Compare the African growth figures with this year’s forecast for the

developed world. Who’s the basket case now?‖

Among other, the article mentioned railways. Read on …

2.2.2 North Africa

North Africa already has a substantial standard gauge network, which stretches from

Marrakech in Morocco through Algeria to Tunis in Tunisia. Egypt also has a standard

gauge network, which stretches from Sallum on its western border with Libya to Rafah

on its eastern border with Gaza. Libya is constructing a standard gauge double-track

railway along its Mediterranean coast, from Surt to Benghazi. First operations are

expected in 2009. It is planned to ultimately link with Egyptian Railways to the east, and

Tunisian Railways to the west. When complete, a 6000 route-km coastal railway,

designated the UAR’s Corridor North, will link North Africa. In Tunisia, this will

require, as a minimum, the following construction. First, fill a missing link of some

70km from the Libyan border to Mélenine. Second, complete some 115 km under

construction from Mélenine to Gabès. Third, re-gauge, or dual gauge, some 215km of

narrow gauge to standard gauge from Gabès to Tabeditt. Last, construct a missing link of

some 35km, across the border, to the standard gauge railhead at Djebel Onk in Algeria

(National Transport, 2009c). The potential ultimately to link into the Eurasian standard

gauge network through the Middle East, and into the European standard gauge network

- 32 -

via the envisioned Gibraltar under sea tunnel and on through the standard gauge network

in Spain20

, is attractive.

Four North African cities enjoy urban rail operations—Algiers, Cairo and Tunis with

metros, and Alexandria and Tunis with light rail systems. Mainline passenger operations

use conventional locomotive-hauled stock. In addition, France and Morocco have signed

a framework agreement to build a high-speed rail link from Tangier to Casablanca, to

meet a rise in passenger numbers. The arrangement is part of the Moroccan railway

master plan, which aims to construct 1500km of high-speed rail lines by 2035, capable of

carrying 120 million passengers on two routes—the Tangier-Marrakech-Agadir Atlantic

link and the Rabat-Fez-Oujda Maghreb link.

North African railways follow UIC (Eurocentric) standards, to advantage and to

disadvantage. While they are able to acquire standard rolling stock from European

builders, they concurrently inherit Europe’s freight train constraints of low axle load and

short trains. The latter attributes handicap railway competitiveness vis-à-vis roads.

2.2.3 Iron ore railways

Heavy duty iron ore railways in Africa carry so much more traffic than ordinary railways

that they almost always adopt standard gauge so as to make use of proven off-the-shelf

technology. New such lines are looming in Cameroon and Senegal. Gabon is already

standard gauge. The Trans Guinean Railway is proposed to be standard gauge. Some

standard gauge lines in Liberia are to be restored. A Cape gauge line in Sierra Leone is to

be changed to standard gauge (African Union, 2009). South Africa is a notable exception

to the foregoing generalization. African heavy-duty railways tend to follow AAR

standards, the most appropriate for such service. They offer limited, if any, passenger

services.

2.2.4 West Africa

Nigeria’s narrow gauge network of about 3 500 km is in poor condition. Some five years

ago, it was decided to rebuild the whole network, and change it to standard gauge at the

same time. Multi-billion dollar contracts were signed with Chinese contractors in 2006,

only to be suspended again in 2008. Progress to date is reported as zero (National

Transport, 2009c).

2.2.5 The Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA)

In 2008, governments in East Africa agreed to expedite construction of a standard gauge

rail network from Dar es Salaam and Mombasa, through Kenya and Tanzania, to

Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, and Uganda, thereby

connecting the countries with the region’s first heavy-duty standard gauge line. Among

other, the United States Class 1 railroad BNSF is advising the countries on acquisition of

locomotives, freight wagons, and related equipment. It was reported that while narrow

gauge track is cheaper, standard gauge has a greater haulage capacity and allows higher

speeds (Barouski, 2008; National Transport, 2009c).

20 The Trans-European Transport Network Executive Agency’s Priority Project 16, Algeciras-Madrid-

Paris, is scheduled to start construction before 2010. Algeciras is near where the northern portal might be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gauge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Off_the_shelf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Cameroon#Railways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Senegal#Railways

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Gabon#Railway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transguinean_Railways


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Liberia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_gauge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Sierra_Leone


- 33 -

2.2.6 A new dawn

Many narrow gauge railways in Africa have reached, to a greater or lesser extent, the end

of their useful lives. In the light of the massive advances that the global railway

renaissance has stimulated, it is unthinkable to now contemplate simply replacing like

with like in Africa. The media have reported evidence of a turnaround in the value Africa

places on its railways. At face value, their reports leave the impression that the

orientation will initially be toward freight traffic, although passenger expectations should

also be referenced against examples in North Africa. Nevertheless, evidence of

addressing the many issues raised in this report is scant, and evidence of implementation

even scanter. South Africa potentially has the critical mass to lead progression from

aspiration to implementation, to bring the railway renaissance into Africa.

2.3 Globally

2.3.1 A basic rail orientation

Increasingly, cities and countries around the world are consciously deciding to base mass

mobility on integrated transport solutions built on a rail foundation. Some of the key

drivers are:

Already high population densities in some cities.

Higher population growth rates in developing countries.

Unbearable traffic problems.

Urbanization—an increasing proportion of a country’s population will

live in cities.

An increase in intercity travel, arguably caused by polarization of

populations into cities.

Decimation of airlines that compete with high-speed intercity trains.

The quantum and scale of projects currently underway leave no doubt that rail solutions

are making a major contribution to the world’s mass mobility needs. The following

passenger-oriented project numbers (Industry projects, undated) drive home the point:

Heavy railways 30

High-speed railways 42

Light rail systems 90

Metros 50

The following two examples are a minute sample that illustrates the settings of the above

projects, how they approach key issues, and how they represent the ethos of

contemporary rail mass mobility solutions.

- 34 -

2.3.2 Two implementation examples

2.3.2.1 A city—Dublin

Greater Dublin21

is following an integrated transport strategy, to create a single

integrated rail network. It comprises Dublin Luas—a growing light rail network; Dublin

Area Rapid Transit (DART)—a broad gauge network administered by Iarnród Éireann

(Ireland’s national railway); Dublin Suburban Rail (DSR)—a broad gauge network

owned and operated by Iarnród Éireann; and Dublin Metro—a heavy rail project in

planning. As a side note, Dublin’s light rail network has been built to standard gauge,

narrower than Irish broad gauge (1600mm).

It is useful to appreciate that integrated does not imply interoperable—Luas is,

and Metro will be, two standalone systems, while DART and DSR are

interoperable with the rest of Ireland’s 1600mm gauge network. Integrated in this

context means that passenger convenience requirements, such as service

synchronization, interchange between operators, public information, and through

ticketing, have been duly developed.

2.3.2.2 A country—Turkey

Turkey is a standard gauge country that had invested little in its railways for almost fifty

years (On the, 2009). Some existing assets could well be leveraged into the future, but,

overall, substantial new investment was indicated.

Light rail development in Turkish cities has progressed briskly, setting an interesting

model of affordable, cost-effective, high-quality public transport for the developing

Third World. The latest system to open is the new 16km system in Eskisehir, a rapidly

developing industrial city with a population of about 500 000. Initial rolling stock

consists of 18 totally low floor trams, 29.5 m long by 2.3 m wide, with five articulated

sections. Of a model already is use in Linz, Austria, the trams have a maximum speed of

70 km/h. The fleet is designed to carry an initial ridership projected to reach 110 000 per

day (Eskisehir launches, 2005). The following are some highlights of Turkey’s urban rail

rollout:

Existing Istanbul regional rail, 30km in the European sector and

44km in the Anatolian sector.

1989 Istanbul Light Metro,

1992 Istanbul Light Rail,

1992 Konya Light Rail,

1996 Ankara Light Rail,

1997 Ankara Metro,

2000 Istanbul Metro,

21 For context, note that Dublin’s population of some 1.7 million is smaller than that of several South

African conurbations.

- 35 -

2000 Izmir Metro,

2002 Bursa Light Rail, and

2009 (projected) Adana Light Metro.

Turkey is also implementing high-speed intercity trains. The Ankara-Eskisehir 250km/h

new electrified double line opened in 2009, The Eskisehir-Istanbul section is under

construction, as are new Ankara-Konya and Ankara-Sivas high speed links. Surveying

has started from Istanbul to the Bulgarian border for a 230km/h line. Korea’s Hyundai

Rotem is delivering interregional trainsets capable of 140km/h (On the, 2009). The

Transport Ministry’s allocation to rail has increased from 6% in 2002 to 42% in 2008.

Turkey is an interesting case of a country investing substantially in rail to recover

quickly ground lost to competitors. The foregoing list of projects spans a mere

ten years.

2.4 Positioning passenger rail

2.4.1 A research foundation

It is not easy to perceive any patterns or relations in the above examples of the status quo

in South Africa, in Africa, and globally. A much larger sample and appropriate research

design is required to glean the insight that underlies strategic positioning of railways.

The Consultant has undertaken such research over several years, using multivariate

statistics applied to global databases. Some of the key findings with respect to passenger

rail are presented next.

2.4.2 Urban systems

In a paper on positioning urban rail systems, Strategies for sustainable mobility: Urban

railways as global corporate citizens (Van der Meulen & Möller, 2008a), which

compared rail systems in 245 cities around the world, the following factors (among

other) were presented in detail:

Factor 1, Positioning Metro Rail.

Factor 2, Positioning Light Rail.

Factor 3, Pitching Urban Rail at Developing Economies.

Factor 4, Pitching Urban Rail at Developed Economies.

Factor 5, Positioning Railway Technology.

For the present study, note that Positioning Metro Rail and Positioning Light Rail

(Factors 1 and 2) emerged as distinct activities. Metro rail and light rail respond to

different drivers—the stature of a city drives metro rail, while demand for lower density

service drives light rail. The research is ongoing, and deeper insight is expected in due

course.

Interestingly, after clustering the 245 cities, those in Turkey emerged in an exclusive

cluster. The example in §2.3.2.2 above thus attests to the exceptional nature of the

transformation in Turkey’s urban railway policy.

- 36 -

Factors 3 and 4 assure the quality of this study, by confirming one’s intuitive

sense that finding rail technology solutions for South Africa, for example, is

different from finding rail technology solutions for Europe, North America, or

Japan. Where possible, the Consultant therefore selected reference applications

in countries comparable to South Africa.22

Factor 4 indicated that light rail aligns with standard solutions, including standard

gauge track. The emergence in recent years of proprietary light rail solutions from

major system integrators underscores this insight in implementing greenfields

urban rail projects.

2.4.3 Regional- and intercity rail systems

In a paper on positioning line-haul rail systems, Ultimate interoperability: Line-haul

railways as global corporate citizens (Van der Meulen & Möller, 2008b), which

compared rail systems in 113 countries around the world, the following factors (among

other) were presented in detail:

Factor 1, Positioning Passenger Rail

Factor 3, Positioning Freight Rail

Factor 1 indicated that positioning passenger railways focuses on finding a sweet spot

among Relative Maximum Speed, Gross National Income, Motorways Percentage,

Information Technology Leverage, High-speed Intercity Presence, Economic Freedom,

Paved Roads Percentage, Research & Development Level, and Electric Traction. Not

only do high gross national income and economic freedom associate with motorways and

paved roads, they also associate with advanced passenger railway solutions. The

association of motorways and paved roads indicated that railways benefit from road

competition, and should therefore not be unduly protected from it. The institutional

positioning of rail and road should recognize this finding. It is significant that positioning

passenger rail emerged ahead of all other line-haul rail positioning functions.

Factor 3, indicated that positioning freight rail is a function distinct from positioning

passenger rail. For the purpose of this study, it is not necessary to explore freight rail

positioning, other than to note that it shares no drivers with passenger rail.

The two factors together indicate the contention unleashed by operating freight

and passenger trains on the same infrastructure. They explain the intuitive sense

that passenger trains in North America, and freight trains in Europe, both on

shared infrastructure, have been butting heads with stronger opponents. This

issue is unavoidably also part of finding passenger rail technology solutions for

South Africa.

The findings in §2.1, §2.2, §2.3, and §2.4 present the status quo in South Africa, in

Africa, and globally in a coherent framework. It is now appropriate to unpack passenger

rail technology, first in general, and then as it applies to South Africa.

22 This was of course not possible in all instances, because developed countries are the source of most

railway technology developments.

- 37 -

3 Scope of the study

3.1 A reflection of user requirements

This study considers passenger rail technology subsystems in terms of imposed user

requirements. It maintains a high-level perspective, among other to enable stakeholders

from diverse backgrounds to develop well-informed positions on railway technology

questions. It therefore avoids technical detail, as would be found in a performance

specification, as far as possible. However, where such detail is unavoidable, explanatory

footnotes provide further explanation. The following topics identify and describe

essential passenger rail technology subsystems that distinguish passenger rail technology

from other rail technology. While many of them have freight rail counterparts, the

following sections emphasize their role in passenger rail. They are presented here to lay a

foundation for the competitive technologies that are discussed in §4.

3.2 Inclusions

This study of passenger rail technology strived to maintain a balanced perspective on

both infrastructure and rolling stock. The following perspectives were admitted:

Most passenger rail solutions in the global market are predicated on,

in the first instance, supplier standard rolling stock, and increasingly

on emerging industry standard rolling stock. This aspect of a total

passenger rail solution catches the eye of administrators and users, and

leaves first and frequently lasting impressions. Established urban-,

regional-, and intercity commuter and/or passenger rolling stock

technologies, and the solutions they support, therefore gave direction

to this study.

Other than stations, right-of-way and infrastructure is less visible to

users, but are an equally important aspect of a total passenger rail

solution. They introduce and fit the rail solution into a local setting. In

this respect, they must also satisfy non-users and even assuage

opponents, by way of environmental impact study and appropriate

mitigation measures. The following aspects are included where

appropriate:

o Right-of-way could well be a major issue, such as when expensive

tunnels are required.

o Passenger trains are relatively light, hence track tends to be a

maintenance consideration rather than a fundamental discriminant

of solutions. However, particular care needs to be taken of noise

and vibration in built-up areas.

o Interoperability where legacy- or modernized freight railway

infrastructure is expected to carry passenger traffic.

3.3 Exclusions

Many aspects other than railway technology, such as user convenience, modal

integration, passenger amenities, station facilities, and many more, influence the

acceptability and attractiveness of passenger rail. However, they relate to railway general

- 38 -

management, not to passenger rail technology per se, and were therefore considered to be

outside the scope of this study.

The institutional arrangements within which passenger railways

operate may influence their ability to adapt to stakeholder

expectations, through the technological solutions they promote or

impede. Nevertheless, for this study, institutional arrangements have

been taken as neutral with respect to passenger rail technology, and

were therefore considered to be outside the scope of this study.

Specific routes, which are at present without rail service, or which

have rail service that does not meet stakeholder expectations, were

excluded because the material presented in this report is sufficiently

generic to be applied to any setting.

Although some people movers23

use rail guidance, they typically only

operate over short distances. People movers were therefore also

considered to be outside the scope of this study.

Specific technologies at subsystem level, for example power electronics, are outside the

scope of this study. They have become a systems integrator prerogative in the

competitive global market, and simply come packaged within an overall solution in

much the same way as motor manufacturers package a particular range of technologies in

their products. There is thus no longer a consistent technology leader in railways. With

new technologies continuously coming onto the market, the leader could be the latest

purchaser—e.g. Public Transport Authority of Western Australia led with water-cooled

power electronic devices on Perth’ Mandurah line, and open access operator NTV in

Italy is lead purchaser of Alstom’s 360km/h AGV. There was no research and

development on their part—they simply happened to be the first customer when a system

integrator bid a new technology. The scene has now been set to move into the passenger

rail technology framework ...

4 A passenger rail technology framework

4.1 Strategic gap identification

4.1.1 Former times

It is useful to first consider how new technology enters railway systems. In former times,

railways:

Dominated land transport,

Had not yet developed mature technologies, and

Had not yet positioned themselves in one of the market spaces that rail

dominates24

.

23 People movers are essentially elevators or lifts that operate horizontally.

24 Heavy haul, high-speed intercity, heavy intermodal, and urban rail. These applications will be examined

in detail in §4.2.

- 39 -

Then, individual railways tended to have equipment custom built to their specifications.

To some extent, this state was driven by the necessity to interoperate with previous

generations of custom-built equipment, but in many instances, it pandered to the

preferences of countries, administrations and authorities, and even officials. Some of

those preferences and specifications rested rationally on formal research and

development. However, many operators, and even suppliers, simply did not have the

wherewithal to undertake research and development. In that milieu, resistance to change

also played a significant role.

4.1.2 Recent times

In recent times, governments around the world have expected public enterprises such as

railways to deliver real value. Frequently, such railways are exposed to, or measured

against, some form of competition, such as competitive transport modes, or even

competitive claims on public funds. Many public sector railways have adapted by

shifting to more competitive solutions and/or technologies. In this respect, they have

moved closer to their private sector counterparts. Concurrently, significant research and

development efforts have shifted from sometimes fragmented and opportunistic

endeavours by railway administrations, -authorities, and -operators, to routine, well-

funded, competitive research by system integrators. One outcome has been industry

standard or preferred technological solutions. Many railway solutions, particularly in the

rolling stock and signalling fields, which are more transportable than civil infrastructure,

thus now come from an ever-consolidating range of system integrators. This is much the

same as aircraft and motor vehicles come from an ever-consolidating range of

competitive manufacturers. This phenomenon is more pronounced in passenger rail,

arguably because mass mobility requirements are less diverse than the logistics

requirements that influence freight rail.

4.1.3 Setting course

This Framework Report will examine the competitive strengths that rail’s technologies

support, and the contemporary passenger rail solutions that exploit them. The Consultant

will then apply the findings to the South African passenger rail setting, to identify gaps

between existing passenger rail technology, which falls short of stakeholder expectations

in many respects, and solutions that can place rail in a commanding position in

appropriate market spaces.

4.2 Positioning passenger rail for competitiveness and sustainability

4.2.1 The fundamental drivers of railway competitiveness

4.2.1.1 Distinctions among transport modes

It is useful to consider railway technology from a perspective of degrees-of-freedom-of-

movement of the various transport modes. First, some modes possess three degrees of

freedom of movement (e.g. aerial- and submarine transport): They offer three-

dimensional mobility, but at relatively high cost. Second, some transport modes possess

two degrees of freedom of movement (e.g. unguided surface transport such as maritime

and road): They trade off reduced mobility against lower cost. Last, guided surface

transport modes possess only a single degree of freedom of movement (e.g. railways and

maglev): They offer limited mobility, back and forth on a guideway. To the extent that

limited mobility reduces value to existing- or potential users, such applications must

- 40 -

offer compensating advantages to hold their own against competing transport modes with

more degrees of freedom of movement.

4.2.1.2 Railway genetic technologies

Guided surface transport is predicated on a vehicle-guideway pair, which ensures precise

application of vertical loads, and secure application of lateral or sideways loads.

Conventional steel-wheel-on-steel-rail contact develops vertical and lateral forces, which

underpin technologies

known as Bearing and

Guiding: They support

respectively heavy axle

load and high speed.

Cross-breaking Bearing

and Guiding in the figure

at right, yields four rail

market spaces. Three of

them are intensely

competitive—Heavy Haul,

High-speed Intercity, and

Heavy Intermodal or

Double Stack. Railways

that participate in them

have demonstrated inherent

sustainability. One may leverage all four market spaces by linking vehicles into trains, to

scale capacity as required, a technology known as Coupling. Bearing, Guiding, and

Coupling are the three genetic technologies that distinguish railways from all other

transport modes: Railway competitiveness can be measured by the extent to which

railways exploit their genetic technologies25

.

4.2.1.3 One potentially weak market space

Section 4.2.1.2 also defines one potentially weak market space—light axle load in

combination with low speed It is exemplified by general freight-, traditional long-

distance passenger-, and urban rail applications. Where general freight- and long-

distance passenger traffic share infrastructure and operations, their natural speed

difference results in contention for line capacity, while their natural riding quality

difference results in contention for permissible axle load. Neither traffic type can exploit

its full potential without compromising the other, which imposes an opportunity cost that

competitive modes do not face26

.

Railways that cannot offer significant advantage over competitive modes struggle for

sustainability. Line-haul railways that fail to exploit their genetic technologies are weak,

25 One cannot define the three competitive market spaces by hard rules, but the following empirical

boundaries fit real railways. Plotting speed on a logarithmic scale, 101.x

km/h (i.e. 10-99km/h) comfortably

accommodates most low speed applications, and 102.x

km/h (i.e. 100-999km/h) comfortably accommodates

most high-speed or ultra-high-speed applications. International Heavy Haul Association Bylaw 4.9 [3]

admits permissible axle load of ≥25 tonnes as heavy haul.

26 It will emerge later that this has been an impediment to development of intercity rail in South Africa, and

that the contention will be magnified when railway operators try to exploit different strengths on the same

infrastructure.

- 41 -

hence competitors erode their markets: Depending on whether economic-, political-, or

social objectives determine their destiny, they are respectively eliminated, protected, or

subsidized. This aspect will be developed further when interoperation between freight

and passenger trains is addressed in §4.4.7.1. Fortunately, urban rail is the exception that

can prove the rule in the light axle load and low speed market space.

4.2.1.4 Urban rail

The criteria by which urban rail is positioned differ from those of line-haul railways in so

many respects, that urban rail is virtually a mode distinct from other railway

applications27

. While it resides in the potentially weak market space, it is nevertheless a

popular and valuable mass mobility solution in many cities. The Coupling genetic

technology makes short average headways possible, by combining vehicles into trains.

Such short headways would challenge the autonomous vehicles with which urban rail

competes. Urban rail’s advantages thus typically relate to total system capacity, by

leveraging the output from each headway- or timetable slot. Note that this perspective

recognizes all urban rail variants found in practice—heavy rail, light rail, metro, tram,

and so on, or any combination of them in a particular city.

Recognize that urban rail’s position in the potentially weak market space does

expose it to encroachment by alternative guided surface transport systems,

which package axle load, headway, and speed differently, to offer alternative

benefits. This issue is developed further in §4.5.2.

4.2.1.5 The important role of track gauge

In noting that the Coupling genetic technology redeems urban rail from

uncompetitiveness, note also that Coupling is not track gauge dependent. That partially

explains why narrow gauge railways operate some of the longest heavy haul trains in the

world. One must therefore look for the influence of track gauge on passenger rail

technology in the other two genetic technologies, Bearing and Guiding.

Human beings do not make a heavy payload for railways, even under crush load

conditions. Noting the determinants of passenger capacity discussed in §4.4.5.2 and

§4.4.5.4, passenger train axle load rarely exceeds 18-19 tonnes, because it is simply not

possible to get more people into a practically sized railway car or -coach. This is light by

contemporary railway standards, and one must therefore conclude that high axle load

does not drive passenger rail competitiveness. The remaining genetic technology,

Guiding, is highly dependent on track gauge.

Track gauge, through its influence on the Guiding genetic technology, is therefore an

important determinant of train speed. This is in turn a fundamental driver of journey

time, a key parameter for long distance passenger rail competitiveness. The technicalities

of track gauge are addressed in §4.4.5.5: In the context of §4.2.1, note now that track

gauge is a fundamental driver of passenger rail competitiveness in the speed-dependent

(>130km/h) domain beyond urban rail, i.e. regional rail and high-speed intercity. In the

latter applications, standard gauge track has become a minimum requirement.

27 It will be shown later that this has important migration advantages for upgrading technology.

- 42 -

4.2.2 Good corporate citizenship

4.2.2.1 Convenience

Several aspects of positioning railways do not fit into neat categories. Convenience is

one of them. It is not a competitive advantage per se, but unless operators recognize it as

an essential element of their total offering, much of their competitive advantage derived

from passenger rail technology could be neutralized. This study therefore takes for

granted that the following material automatically includes consideration of users’

convenience expectations.

4.2.2.2 Climate change considerations

The rolling resistance of steel-wheel-on-steel-rail is inherently low. Furthermore,

coupled rail vehicles follow in one another’s slipstreams, so aerodynamic resistance is

also low. Rail is therefore an inherently energy-efficient transport mode, offering around

4-to-1 advantage over cars and airliners (National Passenger, 2007b). However, neither

regional- nor urban railways have yet leveraged this advantage aggressively (Van der

Meulen & Möller, 2008a and 2008b), by comparison with other modes.

For example, bus rapid transit has positioned itself as a green urban transport solution.

Proponents reason that it uses less fuel than the private cars and taxis it displaces. While

this is true, urban rail ought to claim a similar advantage over BRT, but has not yet done

so. Diesel locomotive builders make a similar claim—diesel locomotives use less fuel

than diesel driven buses or trucks to perform the same task—also true, but they fail to

make the same comparison with electric traction.

Two thrusts are leveraging technology developments that exploit rail’s inherent energy

efficiency. First, coercion in the form of emissions limits on diesel engines has become

assertive. Second, despite the present dip in oil prices, the peak oil spectre is set to drive

oil prices upwards in the medium term.

Fortunately, railway equipment suppliers and system integrators have seized the

initiative from operators in promoting the green benefits of railways, as they strive for

market share. First, they picked low hanging fruit, such as regenerative braking28

, which

is now taken for granted. Next came more complex solutions such as ultra-capacitor on

board energy storage systems, which are a naturally good fit between electric traction

and frequent stops in urban public transport settings.

Recent incisive developments directly address

fundamental weaknesses by reducing the resources

required to deliver a given transport task. Noting that

urban rail is positioned in a potentially weak market

space, and by extension reasoning that even regional rail

is does not fully exploit rail’s axle load and speed

potential, system integrators are promoting articulated

cars on regional trains. The technology increases axle

load, and reduces cost and complexity, by sharing bogies

28 Regenerative braking minimizes energy consumption by recovering the energy that would otherwise

have been dissipated in friction braking. It has a side benefit of minimizing wear and maintenance of

friction brakes.

- 43 -

between vehicles as in the picture. Of course, maintenance facilities need to be

appropriately equipped to lift an entire train for bogie and wheelset maintenance29

, and

high equipment reliability is a key success factor. Car body width is also being increased,

to as much as 3,6m30

, to increase floor area to accommodate more passengers and hence

to raise axle load, on both commuter and regional trains. Naturally, such big vehicles are

not widely interoperable, but their capital- and operating cost savings outweigh

constrained interoperability.

Next generation urban and regional trains hold the prospect of almost 50% reduction in

energy consumption, derived as follows (Hondius, 2008):

Permanent magnet traction motors 2%

Driver aids to balance energy usage and schedule optimization 15%

Aerodynamically optimized nose ends 12%

On-board braking energy recovery 20%

Thus while energy consumption cannot reflect rail’s genetic technologies31

, it is closely

related to those technologies. Now that research and development is primarily in the

hands of system integrators, the field is making rapid progress in reducing energy

consumption. As climate-change concerns mount, rail’s energy efficiency is becoming

almost as strong an attraction as the competitive strengths that its genetic technologies

provide. Together, they offer a winning combination that can offset disadvantages in

rail’s weaker low axle load, low speed applications. Railway operators should be willing

to upgrade equipment routinely, to take advantage of such technological advances.

4.2.2.3 The security subsystem

Security is not a requirement unique to railways. It applies as much to railways as to any

other situation in which people become opportunities for villains to strike. In South

Africa, train passengers are additionally at risk because it is not possible to effectively

patrol trains without end-to-end access. It is also not workable to interlock door

operation with propulsion, which means that it is possible to force doors open and throw

passengers out of moving trains. The railway industry has developed a standard security

sub-system comprising:

Access control to stations,

Video surveillance at stations and on trains,

Door interlocking to prevent opening while trains are moving at

speed,

Communication between passengers and train driver and between

driver and control,

29 Train lifting is not an undue imposition—most contemporary maintenance facilities for multiple unit sets

are equipped to lift entire trains, so that bogies and major underfloor equipment can be changed quickly.

30 Copenhagen suburban train sets produced by a Siemens/LHB consortium.

31 Many transport modes use propulsion and braking systems, so energy consumption cannot be a railway

genetic technology.

- 44 -

Public address from control to passengers on stations and trains, and

Rapid response personnel.

Although not an element of the abovementioned security sub-system, full width inter-

circulation gangways between cars, which have become popular for increasing usable

floor space, also allow passengers to avoid empty cars, and facilitate end-to-end access

by security personnel.

This solution offers adequate peace of mind to attract potential users. Unless a

railway operator meets passengers’ minimum security expectations, they will vote

with their feet for other transport options: Implementation of contemporary rail

technology in unsafe settings will not meet with success.

4.3 Mainstream conventional passenger rail technology solutions

4.3.1 A menu of contemporary solutions

The following sections describe variations that have emerged from the global railway

renaissance as mainstream passenger rail technology solutions. They represent a

competitive, vibrant industry’s best shot at serving the needs of mass passenger mobility,

and capturing market share from other modes. Authorities and operators should consider

this the menu from which they can order solutions. Specials are of course available, but

are likely to command a price premium and thereby miss the competitive advantage that

mainstream solutions seek to exploit. Furthermore, specials only perpetuate the

competitive disadvantage that requires them in the first instance, thereby ultimately

relegating deviant railways to the margins.

Note that the technical system parameters mentioned in §4.3 are indicative, not

definitive. Values that are more precise would need to be developed during feasibility

study and preliminary design phases for application opportunities that warrant deeper

examination. Note also that, on the same track gauge, the boundaries between the

mainstream solutions are not rigid, but allow a degree of performance overlap.

4.3.2 Light Rail

4.3.2.1 Evolution

Light Rail evolved from what were formerly trams, and

in many instances still runs on former tram tracks.

However, contemporary light rail vehicles (LRVs) are

technologically advanced; they contribute substantially

to a city’s transport task, and are attractively styled. They

can mingle intimately with pedestrians and motorists,

where their presence represents an in-your-face

marketing opportunity. On segregated right-of-way, they

can make rapid progress. They are quiet, and offer a

comfortable ride. State-of-the-art LRVs feature low floors, 300-350mm above rail, over

60-100% of their floor area. They are convenient for shoppers with parcels and parents

with children. Some systems provide low-level platforms for level entry, to reduce dwell

time.

- 45 -

4.3.2.2 Vehicle design

Contemporary LRVs may use multiple articulation, comprising sections 5-9 meters long:

They can therefore easily negotiate curves to a minimum radius of around 25m in

existing city streets. They can also adapt to growing ridership by adding units. Total

lengths typically range between 20 and 70 meters. The industry rates nominal passenger

capacity at four persons per square meter. Depending on seating configuration, body

width, and total length, LRV capacity is in the range 150-350 passengers.

Light Rail is generally less restricted in terms of vehicle dimensions than other urban rail

applications, except of course in those cities where it needs to pass through narrow

passages in historic districts. System integrators therefore offer standard body widths in

the range 2.30-2.65 meters. End sections are frequently tapered, to minimize swept area

in confined spaces.

Light Rail is a standard gauge application for new systems, with very few exceptions.

Former meter gauge light rail routes in some European conurbations have been re-

gauged to standard gauge, to foster large-scale integration with neighbouring standard

gauge networks. It makes no sense to specify a track gauge other than standard gauge,

because it increases price and reduces the global fleet size. A global trade in LRVs is

picking up—Konya and Antalya in Turkey opened starter networks with LRVs from

respectively Cologne and Nuremberg in Germany. In an interesting international deal,

Mulhouse in France ordered its entire fleet at once, but is building the network itself in

stages: Five LRVs not immediately required were leased to Melbourne in Australia until

2011 (C2 class, undated).

4.3.2.3 Traction characteristics

Low floor LRVs do not have space to accommodate traction motors between their

wheels. Traction motors are therefore overhung outside the wheels. The proportion of

motored axles can be as high as required, up to 100%. LRVs can cope with gradients as

steep as 8%, thereby making less demand on environment and infrastructure.


Axle loads have traditionally been of the same order as road vehicles, around 8-10 tons:

The rationale was that Light Rail could be implemented without major substructure

preparation. Of course, installing a guideway in built environment is always a disruptive

operation. Note however from §4.2.1, that axle load drives rail competitiveness. It

therefore comes as no surprise that buses, with the same axle load but greater mobility,

offer serious competition. Light rail axle loads have therefore been creeping up into to

the range 10-12 tonnes. Except on legacy infrastructure, this should not pose a structural

or financial challenge when contemplating extensions or new applications.

Electrification is typically overhead. It may be trolley wire (contact wire only), which

has less visual intrusion but lower speed potential, or catenary (contact wire and

messenger wire), which has more visual intrusion but higher speed potential. Attractive

alternatives are expected in the near future (see §4.4.7.4).

4.3.2.5 Performance

Maximum speed is typically around 70 km/h, but could reach 90km/h on segregated

right-of-way in outlying areas with long station spacings. Average speed depends on the

extent to which light rail vehicles must contend for right-of-way. It could be less than

- 46 -

15km/h on shared right-of-way in areas congested by pedestrians and/or road traffic.

Depending on distance between stops, it could be as high as 40-45km/h on segregated

right of way.

4.3.2.6 Capacity

Light rail vehicles must be driven manually on right of way shared with motorists or

pedestrians: Signalling systems simply do not work when people and road vehicles also

contend for access. Even in outlying areas on segregated right-of-way, many light rail

systems use no signalling other than controlled intersections with road vehicles, to

minimize costs. However, un-signaled light rail generally does not exceed 60-70km/h

(Van der Voort, 1980). Should a higher speed be indicated, signals would be required,

and the application would then tend to the domain of Light Metro (see §4.3.3.1).

It is therefore difficult to give exact capacity numbers, and many systems are rated in

passengers per day, rather than passengers per direction per hour. Indicative rates would

be 6000-12 000 passengers/direction/hour during peaks, and 30 000-60 000 passengers

per day.

Short dwell time at halts is helped by many side doors—typically at least one, frequently

two, per articulation unit. It is common practice for regular users to have long-period

tickets, and for casual users to validate tickets when boarding. Such honour systems do

little ticket checking but have high penalties for fare evasion. Operating light rail

vehicles with many doors at street level in South Africa might challenge the ingenuity of

fare collectors. In settings where light rail could be a candidate solution, there may be

value in exploring the next level, Light Metro, to manage fare collection by means of

formal stations.

4.3.2.7 Costing

Costing is of the order of R75 million per kilometer and upwards, for a basic though

complete system including rolling stock. It is of course sensitive to many factors. First,

situation-specific such as cost of land, extent of segregated right-of-way, extent of

elevated and/or underground construction, type of signalization, and complexity and

frequency of stations. Second, sharing right of way with say, freeway construction, or

combining stations with commercial development, could possibly reduce costs. Third,

generic such as funding arrangements and exchange rate. There is no applicable history

of light rail construction in South Africa, so overseas prices have been used as a first

approximation.

4.3.2.8 Key technical system parameters

Stated values are those typically preferred for new systems: Extensions to legacy systems

may follow previous practice.

Maximum speed 70-90km/h, depending on station spacing

Average speed 15-45km/h, depending on right of way

Capacity 5000-10 000 passengers/direction/hour

Track gauge 1435mm

Track configuration Double

Minimum curve radius 25m

- 47 -

Maximum gradient 8%

Axle load 8-10 tonnes

Control system Manual driving on sight, or signalized

Power supply 25kV ac

4.3.2.9 Tram-train

Tram-train operation allows LRVs to venture further afield than their traditional city

networks. Light rail networks in many cities have potential links, to regional- or national

rail heavy rail networks. Such external networks can support LRV access from outlying

suburbs into city centres. Of course, the converse, heavy rail vehicles entering city

centres via tram routes, is usually not possible because of axle load-, vehicle length-, and

vehicle profile constraints.

Driven by competition, a trend to differentiate a new category of rolling stock has

emerged in recent years. The 70km/h maximum speed of most LRVs is insufficient for

heavy rail lines, so they are typically re-geared for a maximum speed of 100km/h. Heavy

rail can also support higher axle load, so tram-train axle load has crept up to 11-12

tonnes. Despite the name, tram-train is thus quite far removed from regular trams.

The essential requirements for tram-train operation are firstly, interoperability with

respect to track gauge and overhead power supply and secondly, a modus operandi that

recognizes the relatively weak crashworthiness of LRVs by comparison with heavy rail

vehicles. Operators employ two methods. First, temporal separation, i.e. operating heavy

rail and light rail at different times of the day, say light rail during the day, and freight

trains at night. Second, physical separation is achieved by interlocking signals such that

there is no possibility of say a derailed heavy rail train crashing into a LRV (Bowen,

2008).

Tram-train is not a passenger rail front-runner in South Africa, because there are no

standard gauge light density tracks on the present TFR network. It is therefore mentioned

here for completeness only.

4.3.3 Light Metro

4.3.3.1 General description

Light Metro is essentially high-floor Light Rail provided

with dedicated right-of-way throughout the system. This

enables its full speed potential of 80km/h to be exploited,

without contending for right-of-way. It can thus offer

average speeds similar to metro, namely around 40-

45km/h. Operation is usually automatic (driverless). The

high-floor design allows level entry from matched

platforms, to minimize station dwell time. The

infrastructure may be at grade, as is usual for light rail,

but where necessary it is elevated or tunneled, to provide unimpeded access to stations.

This yields the following advantages over heavy metro:

Axle load is lower, so structures are lighter,

- 48 -

Vehicle profiles are smaller, so structures, particularly tunnels, are

smaller,

Curves are tighter and grades are steeper, which allows greater use of

less expensive guideways,

Stations are smaller and less expensive, and

Vehicles cost less.

Light Metro therefore typically requires around half the capital cost of a conventional

underground metro system, or around R125 million per kilometer. Of course, system

capacity is not in the league of heavy metro systems. Light Metro is rated as a medium

capacity system—up to 30 000 passengers/hour/direction. It is a comparatively recent

development, and all applications have been on standard gauge track. The illustration

shows a Guigaro industrial design for Copenhagen.




Maximum speed 80-90km/h

Average speed 40-45km/h, depending on station spacing

Capacity 30 000 passengers/direction/hour

Track gauge 1435mm



Maximum gradient 8%


Control system Automated


4.3.4 Heavy Metro, or simply Metro

4.3.4.1 Origin

Metro is the rail application that delivers highest passenger capacity. The word metro

features widely in the names of rapid transit systems

around the world, including Metrorail in South Africa. A

sign with the letter M is also widely used to indicate

entrances to stations that may otherwise be

inconspicuous. Note however, after reading what

follows, that the metro connotation in Metrorail could be

a misnomer: Once South Africa’s passenger rail

dispensation has been repositioned to reflect

contemporary solutions, it could be appropriate to

consider re-branding it.

- 49 -


Metro is one of the oldest passenger railway applications: London’s Underground dates

from 1863, after which the technology quickly spread to

other cities in Europe and then the United States. Such

systems have become so entangled in their respective

built environments, that it would be unthinkably

expensive to change key dimensions such as track gauge

and vehicle profile. Some metros are built to unique

profiles with extremely small dimensions—see for

example the illustration at right of a London Transport

train.

Metros are therefore often more restricted regarding vehicle dimensions than other rail

applications, particularly those that were established prior to emergent industry

standards. Now that globalization is forging a shared vision, there is growing

appreciation of the advantages of designs with as many common elements a practicable.

Note that while many people associate metro with underground, this is not necessarily

so. Chicago’s famed L (for elevated) metro has more elevated track than at grade- or sub-

surface track.

Metros can accommodate gradients as steep as 5%, because they have a high proportion

of motored axles, up to 100% in some cases. Axle loads are around 16 tonnes.

4.3.4.3 Vehicle design

The above, and other comparable vehicle profiles, can never be a preferred or standard

profile, yet the supply industry is ready to build to such unique requirements. By

contrast, Mumbai Metro, currently under construction, has even departed from India’s

uni-gauge policy to embrace standard gauge track (Bhatnagar, 2006). The reasoning was

that, for a greenfields project with no interoperability requirements, the most

competitive, industry standard or industry preferred, rolling stock would support the

optimum overall solution.

System integrators have therefore been careful to design modular vehicle structures,

which they can adapt to a variety of vehicle heights and widths: Deviating from preferred

or standard32

vehicle profiles and widths will of course command a price premium. In a

world where numerous cities are building or contemplating greenfields metro systems,

the wisdom of going with the mainstream is compelling.

Notwithstanding such preferences, it is interesting to note that a plethora of new metros

springing up in Asia has vehicle profile widths in the range 3000-3150mm. Appreciate

however that tunneling is extremely expensive, and that avoidable tunneling may

influence the body width selected.

4.3.4.4 Performance

Metro performance is bounded by acceleration and retardation, typically close to the

passenger comfort limit of 1m/s2, and a maximum speed of around 80km/h, which

parameters maximize line capacity. This gives an average speed of around 40-45km/h.

32 That is, where standards do exist.

- 50 -

Metro lines are typically in the range 15-35km in length, which gives end-to-end journey

times in the range 20-45 minutes. Individual station-to-station link times are of the order

of two minutes.

Acceptable or desirable journey time depends on the socio-economic setting. However,

for journeys outside the above range, other options, such as regional trains, with lower

passenger density and higher maximum speed, could offer more attractive solutions.

4.3.4.5 Capacity

Minimizing station dwell time contributes to maximizing system capacity. Metro cars

therefore have between two and four doors per side, to ensure rapid egress and entry.

Double deck coaches cannot discharge and load commuters as rapidly as single deck

coaches: The double deck configuration allows no more than two doors per side, and

they have to serve a higher passenger count on two decks. Metro systems have therefore

converged globally on single deck trains for ultimate passenger capacity.

The industry rates nominal passenger capacity at six persons per square meter of car

floor area. A six-car train can therefore carry around 2000 passengers. At 1½ minute

headways, this gives a throughput of 80 000 passengers per direction per hour. Actual

capacity is of course a function of the headway supported by the signaling system, the

train length, manual or automatic train operation, frequency of stops, and so on. For

example, Guangzhou Metro, in China, has a capacity of 100 000 passengers per hour per

direction.

Entry-level systems convey around 15 000 passengers per direction per hour. The

challenge with a new metro system is to pitch it at a growing catchment area, by

extending the length of the initial line, adding further lines, usually radially, or

developing bus or light rail feeder networks. To give an appreciation of ultimate duty

cycle, cities such as Sao Paulo carry more than one million passengers per day per line

(Automating Brazil’s, 2009). For service of 18 hours per day, the average throughput is

almost 28 000 passengers per direction per hour. Metro is thus a robust urban rail

application.

4.3.4.6 The enigma of track gauge

Metro trains make comparatively frequent stops. While higher speed may shorten

journey time, it also increases headway between trains, and so diminishes capacity. The

headway-speed trade-off maximizes capacity at around 80km/h. Metro trains require

high acceleration and high retardation to achieve short headways. A high proportion of

axles must therefore be motored, but the traction motors themselves are relatively small.

They thus fit easily between the wheels of even narrow gauge bogies.

Greenfields metros are nowadays built to standard gauge, whatever the national gauge of

the country in which they are built, whether narrow or broad. The advantage of standard

gauge is that it can attract competitive bids based on established designs and -production

capacity. However, narrow gauge metro sacrifices nothing in performance, because it can

accommodate the requisite traction motor size.

The enigma of metro rail is thus that it is the one railway application where narrow

gauge track does not impede train performance in any way—vehicle profiles are diverse,

single-deck vehicles do not raise stability issues, speed is relatively low in any event, and

adequately rated traction motors can fit.

- 51 -

Of course, while metro trains do not intrinsically require standard gauge track, the

latter does add value through greater comfort, wider bodies, and importantly,

competitive global sourcing. The enigma provides valuable insight to inform

future metro investment decisions in South Africa.

4.3.4.7 Costing

As with any urban rail project, costing is essentially situation specific. Land acquisition

can be significant. The cost of infrastructure runs around 80% of the investment, and is

dependent on location—at grade, elevated, or underground, the cost increasing by rule of

thumb in the ratio 1:5:10 respectively.

The Gautrain price tag of around R20 billion would be a fair starting point to estimate

the cost of metro construction, and is the only current reference for South Africa. Aside

from the higher speed, there are many similarities with a metro system. The speed would

be lower, which would allow tighter curves and thereby reduce environmental impact,

but signalling for high capacity would be more expensive. For 80km route length, the

system cost is R250 million per kilometer.





Average speed 40-45km/h, depending on station spacing

Capacity 15 000-80 000 passengers/direction/hour

Track gauge 1435mm



Maximum gradient 5%


Control system Manual with ATP, or fully automated


4.3.5 Regional rail

4.3.5.1 Origin

Operators and system integrators have been able to

delineate the regional rail market space more clearly in

recent years: Its combination of high speed and high

capacity per train have stimulated a commuter market

that rippled out in a widening catchment area around

large cities. It is thus positioned between metro and high-

speed intercity. Regional rail typically offers convenient

interchange with metro systems, where they exist, to

facilitate easy access from outlying areas to diverse

destinations in a city.

- 52 -

4.3.5.2 Trains

Regional trains trace their origins to, and have largely displaced, earlier suburban

services, operated by traditional single deck locomotive-hauled coaches or EMUs.

Contemporary regional trains are usually double-decked, vehicle gauge permitting. This

is possible even within the comparatively low UIC vehicle gauge, although the window

band of the upper deck needs to be canted inwards. Double deck coaches have emerged

as an economic solution for many regional rail applications.

Double deck stock uses the volume below the normal single-deck floor for lower deck

passengers. This means that normal underfloor propulsion-, braking-, and auxiliary

equipment must move elsewhere. First generation double deck trains met this challenge

by using locomotives—the coaches were plain trailers. Regional trains are usually

operated in push-pull mode, with the locomotive at one end, and a trailer with driver’s

cab at the other. The disadvantage is that the power-to-mass ratio, and hence the

acceleration, varies as the number of coaches varies. Nevertheless, braking performance

on coaches with air suspension is consistent, regardless of passenger load.

Despite the challenge of finding space for two passenger decks and all propulsion-,

braking-, and auxiliary equipment, technological advances, and competition among

system integrators, has yielded a new generation of double-deck regional EMUs, now

entering the market. Regional trains can now enjoy the consistent performance that

characterizes fixed formation trains.

Adaptable entrance levels are emerging on single deck regional stock, to accommodate a

range of customer platform heights. Note that entrance level should be specified at time

of order, usually not adjustable from station to station. On double deck stock, doors may

be configured on the lower level, ideal for low-level platforms, or above the bogies, ideal

for high-level platforms.


Regional rail is a synergistic application that frequently shares infrastructure owned by

others—for example, the national infrastructure operator in European countries, or one of

the freight railroads in North America. It sometimes also uses dedicated infrastructure

portions, such as the RER33

in Paris, which also ultimately link into a national network.

Regional rail thus generally runs at grade, but it may include elevated or underground

sections to access city centres. Outside city limits, regional rail typically needs to share

infrastructure access with freight traffic and possibly high speed intercity trains as well.

Aspects such as line speed, riding quality, and signalling warrant due consideration.

There could be synergy between freight- and regional passenger trains in the context of

communication based train control (see §4.4.7.5), which has recently emerged as the

preferred system for medium density shared routes in the United States.

Standard gauge track is an essential requirement for full-size double deck trains, due to

their comparatively high centre of gravity and, depending on operating regime, their high

speed as well.

33 Réseau Express Régional, or regional express network.

- 53 -

4.3.5.4 Performance

Maximum speed depends on the infrastructure characteristics, but is in the range 120

km/h (on narrow gauge track) to 200km/h on standard gauge track. DMUs are at the low

end of the range, while locomotive-hauled trains operate at the upper end of the range.

Maximum speed is more important than acceleration and deceleration, because regional

trains typically do not run to headways as short as urban rail.

Regional trains typically operate on legacy infrastructure as is, or with low-budget

upgrades. System integrators therefore offer active body tilting as an option on regional

multiple unit trains. On standard gauge track, body tilting can raise permissible speed in

curves by 30-35%. On curvy routes, that can materially reduce running times. See

§4.4.5.6 for more information regarding tilting.

4.3.5.5 Capacity

Double deck coaches carry 140-240 people, depending on interior layout, seating

configuration, and passenger density. Journey time, and the length of time passengers are

willing to stand, also influences the number. Regional trains may be equipped with

toilets, to accommodate passenger needs over extended journeys. The number of coaches

in a train depends on capacity requirements, and whether it is locomotive-hauled or

multiple unit stock.

Headway is dependent on the host railway signalling system.

Practical capacity ranges from 30 000 passengers per hour per direction for single deck

stock, to >60 000 passengers per hour per direction for double deck stock.

4.3.5.6 Costing

Costing regional rail projects is a complex exercise. Aside from the basic infrastructure

cost, which is highly situation-specific, there can be positive and negative impacts. On

the positive side, commercial development of stations and station precincts can increase

a system’s revenues, and make fares more accessible. Dramatically reducing travel time

can change the course of economic geography development. On the negative side,

mitigating environmental impact can be significant where routes pass through

ecologically sensitive areas and built-up areas.

To put a number on it, South Africa’s recently proposed greenfields Moloto Rail project,

over a distance of some 120km, was estimated to cost ZAR 8-9 billion (National

Transport, 2009g). If suitable existing infrastructure is available, only rolling stock, and

possibly station platforms as well, will be required. In this case, standard gauge double

deck EMU stock costs in the region of R20 million per car





Average speed 110-150km/h, depending on horizontal curvature

Capacity 30 000-60 000 passengers/direction/hour

Track gauge 1435mm

- 54 -

Track configuration Usually double, could be single

Minimum curve radius 2500-3000m for unrestricted speed

Maximum gradient 2½%


Control system Manual with ATP

Power supply 25kV ac or diesel

4.3.6 High-speed Intercity

4.3.6.1 Origin

High-speed Intercity trains run at 200km/h, perhaps 220km/h (UIC, General definitions,

undated). Note that in recent years, as the fastest intercity trains advanced from the mid-

200s to the mid-300s km/h, a significant number of high-speed operations stayed at

200km/h. They are now still known as high-speed trains. However, those that advanced

above 300km/h have come to be known as ultra-high-speed trains, described in §4.3.7.

It appears that 200-220km/h has become a ceiling for

conventional rail on non-dedicated track. A tilting

version of such a train is shown at right. Most railway

engineers around the world agree that it is only economic

and feasible to upgrade a conventional railway to

200km/h or to 225km/h if the original alignment is good

(Briginshaw, 2009). Beyond that, there is distinct

advantage in building new dedicated infrastructure for

ultra-high-speed rail.

See §2.1.3.1, §4.4.2.1, and §4.4.3.2 regarding potential application to South Africa

(whose legacy system does not meet the good original alignment criterion above).


Contemporary high-speed intercity trains thus run largely on legacy infrastructure that

does not justify replacement by, or incorporation in, dedicated high-speed lines. The

concept is generally well developed in the western European setting, and China has also

implemented similar operations in the last year or two. Note that Europe has had a

history of notching up speed regularly, and railways routinely programmed curve

widening. However, now that ultra-high-speed has emerged as a distinct market space,

regular speed increases on legacy infrastructure appear to have abated.

High-speed infrastructure is usually double tracked and electrified. It is always standard

gauge or broad gauge. It usually also includes substantial portions of upgraded legacy

routes, but some portions may be on new dedicated right of way. In many instances high-

speed trains use existing low speed infrastructure to gain access to stations in city

centres. Signalling always includes automatic train protection. Sound barriers are

required near to built-up areas.

4.3.6.3 Services

High-speed is invariably associated with quality service—a high level of comfort,

frequency and accessibility (UIC, In view of operating, undated). Routes are operated by

- 55 -

classical trains hauled by locomotives, or tilting trains in fixed formation (UIC, In view

of rolling, undated). A 200km/h capability has come to be taken for granted for such

rolling stock.

4.3.6.4 Capacity

Average speed is of the order of 140-150km/h. High-speed intercity is timetable driven,

rather than capacity-driven. A realistic maximum frequency would be six trains per hour,

with a capacity of say 500 persons per train of single deck coaches. This gives 3000

passengers/direction/hour, which is not remarkable. Given that capacity is relatively

lower and journey time relatively longer than ultra-high speed, only countries that have

suitable legacy infrastructure, such as the new accession countries of the European

Union, are still pursuing the high-speed option.

4.3.6.5 Freight access

High-speed routes evolved out of traditional mixed freight and passenger traffic

operations. Although some network operators still allow freight trains to run on high-

speed lines, they are severely restricted and at present operate only at night (UIC, In view

of operating, undated). Wagons of questionable condition from a general freight pool are

regarded as a safety risk on high-speed infrastructure.

4.3.6.6 Costing

High-speed multiple unit trains cost around R20 million per car. A 9-car train for the 500

passengers mentioned in §4.3.6.4 would thus cost around R180 million. Noting that such

trains normally run on existing infrastructure that has been routinely upgraded, there

should be no infrastructure cost. However, in South Africa this is not the case. To

upgrade a line for high speed, around 70% of the existing route distance would need to

be rebuilt, at a cost of some R10 million per kilometer for a single track non-electrified

line.




Maximum speed 200km/h

Average speed 140-150km/h

Capacity 3000 passengers/direction/hour

Track gauge 1435mm

Track configuration Usually double, could be single

Minimum curve radius 3000m* for unrestricted speed

Maximum gradient 2½%

Axle load 20 tonnes (locomotives)


Power supply 25kV ac or diesel

*This radius could be reduced by using trains with body tilting.

- 56 -

4.3.7 Ultra-high-speed Intercity

4.3.7.1 The market space

Since the opening of Japan’s Shinkansen in 1964,

continuous passenger rail technology development has

created the ultra-high-speed intercity market space. It

builds on rail’s Guiding genetic technology, and

leverages that with the Coupling genetic technology, to

create capacity. Rail has become the predator in

competition for intercity travel, and has made substantial

inroads into air travel over distances to 1000km. An

example is shown at right.

The market space is bracketed by maximum speed higher than 250km/h, currently to

360km/h technical capability. Typically such routes do not carry freight traffic, but it

may develop in the near future (UIC, In view of operating, undated). There have been

moves to carry IATA containers between airports in Europe. However, operation of

conventional freight wagons is not favoured, and many high-speed lines are built to steep

gradients that preclude heavy freight trains. The only freight likely to justify high speed

trains is what goes by air at present—i.e. relatively light, urgent, high-value

consignments.

Spanish infrastructure manager ADIF announced recently that it will allow freight trains

to operate on high-speed lines following a change in policy by the Development Ministry

(ADIF allows, 2009). Spain’s rail freight market share fell to 2.6% in 2004, making it

almost irrelevant in the national freight transport task. It is not yet clear from practical

experience whether the development will have positive or negative spin-offs.

4.3.7.2 Rolling stock

Europe’s first generation high-speed trains, for speeds of 250km/h and up, were built to

individual railway specifications, e.g. France’s TGV and Germany’s ICE. Following

their success and the spread of cross-border high speed train travel, the industry now

offers proprietary trains, in much the same way as Boeing and Airbus offer proprietary

aircraft (see §4.4.7.3). As in the case of proprietary regional trains, low energy

consumption has become a selling point. The European Union’s Technical Specifications

for Interoperability, which set out to regulate international passenger trains, now regulate

many aspects of ultra high speed trains and their operation (see §4.3.8).

4.3.7.3 Performance

Ultra high-speed services have few stops, to minimize journey time. In a biennial survey

of scheduled train average speeds above a 150km/h threshold, six countries boasted

average speeds higher than 200km/h, from 228km/h in Spain to 279km/h in France

(Taylor, 2007). For new, dedicated, high-speed routes, one could expect average speeds

in the range 220-280km/h.


The following norms are emerging as standard for ultra-high-speed intercity railways:

- 57 -

They use standard gauge (or broad gauge34

) track, without exception.

Right of way is mostly dedicated, double tracked, and electrified35

.

Such infrastructure can only be justified on high-density routes.

Gradients can be very steep by traditional railway standards, as much

as 4%, to minimize environmental impact and infrastructure cost.

Sound barriers are provided in built-up areas, to mitigate aerodynamic

and running noise.

Services may use existing conventional, i.e. relatively low speed,

infrastructure to gain access to inner city stations, subject of course to

the same speed restrictions as normal trains.

Where through running can minimize journey time over long

distances, there is a trend to locate intermediate stations on the

outskirts of cities36

. Over time, such stations would attract

development.

There is a significant trend to link ultra-high-speed networks with

international airports, to facilitate convenient global-to-local travel.

From the foregoing bullets it is evident that ultra-high-speed railways are not merely an

extension of conventional railways, but that they lift rail’s contribution to a country’s

economic geography to a new level.

4.3.7.5 Capacity

Ultra-high-speed trains can convey around 20 000 passengers per hour per direction.

Japan’s Tokaido line can run 15 trains/hour, with a capacity of 1323 passengers, while

France’s TGV Sud-Est can run 20 trains/hour with a capacity of 1090 passengers. Both

use double deck cars on some trains, although single-deck cars prevail elsewhere. Aside

from economic benefits, ultra-high-speed trains seem to be becoming a must-have as

countries develop. The question thus reduces from what is the maximum that a route can

convey, to what is the minimum ridership that can support the investment.

4.3.7.6 Costing

Costing ultra high-speed projects is a complex exercise. The basic infrastructure cost,

which is highly situation-specific, must account for large-radius horizontal and vertical

curves. In all but the easiest terrain, this requires long sections of tunnel or viaduct.

Access to, and the cost of, terminals and intermediate stations in existing built

environment can be expensive. Where existing lines to the same gauge exist, they can

provide valuable access to city centres. This is however not immediately possible in the

case of South Africa’s narrow track gauge. In addition, there can be positive and negative

impacts. On the positive side, development of stations and station precincts can increase

a system’s revenues, and make fares more accessible. Dramatically reducing travel time

34 It is comparatively easy to fit slightly wider wheelsets to standard gauge designs. Siemens’ Velaro-Rus

for Russian Railways is essentially a standard gauge design fitted with running gear for 1520mm gauge.

35 State-of-the-art diesel engines are not sufficiently powerful to propel ultra high-speed trains.

36 For example Lyon TGV on the Paris-Marseilles route, Lille-Europe on the Paris-Brussels route, and

Ardennes-Champagne TGV on the Paris-Strasbourg route,

- 58 -

between cities can attract economies of agglomeration. It can also change the course of

economic geography development—e.g. the Shinkansen has had a great effect on Japan’s

business, economy, society, environment, and culture (Okada, 1994). On the negative

side, mitigating environmental impact can be significant where routes pass through

ecologically sensitive areas and built-up areas.

To put a number on it, the world’s most recent proposal, Brazil’s São Paulo-Rio de

Janeiro ultra high speed project, over a distance of some 550km, is estimated to cost

ZAR 80-150 billion (Gevert, 2008). In considering a similar new passenger line from

Johannesburg to Durban, the Rail Gauge Working Group estimated the infrastructure

cost to be R80 billion (National Transport, 2009f). A fleet of 25 trains at R200 million

each would add another R5 billion, for a total of R 85 billion. The first example

illustrates the wide range that needs to be reduced before a project can approach financial

closure. The second example is in the same ballpark that, in the absence of more detailed

analysis, confirms that it is a fair estimate now.




Maximum speed 360km/h

Average speed 220-280km/h

Capacity 20 000 passengers/direction/hour

Track gauge 1435mm


Minimum curve radius 7000m for unrestricted speed

Maximum gradient 4%




4.3.8 Emergence of standards

4.3.8.1 A moving target

Having examined the range of mainstream conventional passenger rail technology

solutions, it would have been good to consider the standards that have influenced the

mainstream. However, one of the realities of the railway renaissance is that technological

development has outpaced development of standards. Indeed, the railway renaissance

would probably not have happened if standards had had to precede it. Prospects for

global standards are thus remote at this time. A country that needs to catch up, such as

South Africa, thus confronts a somewhat messy situation. Fortunately it is possible to

indicate convergence on supplier-standard and possibly industry-standard passenger rail

technology solutions in the following few categories.

- 59 -

4.3.8.2 European influences

The European Union has worked diligently to establish a railway environment that

supports international rail transport, creation of an internal market in equipment and

services, and that contributes to interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail

system. It has moved away from national- and UIC standards to European Union

directives. Its first Directive, 1996/48/EC Annex 1, stated ―High Speed train services

presuppose excellent compatibility between the characteristics of the infrastructure and

those of the rolling stock. Performance levels, safety, quality of service and cost depend

upon that compatibility.‖

Based on experience with implementation, essential requirements in the latest Technical

Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) (European Union, 2008) include safety,

reliability and availability, health, environmental protection, and technical compatibility.

The scope of TSIs have also been broadened to now include all trains, but ―Member

States may exclude … metros, trams, and other light rail systems … networks that are

functionally separate from the rest of the railway system and intended only for the

operation of local, urban, or suburban passenger services, as well as railway undertakings

operating solely on these networks.‖ Note that Europe progressed top-down from

international services and stopped short of ―functionally separate‖ urban rail systems.

This emphasizes the reality already mentioned (see §4.3.4) that existing urban rail

systems are a mixed bag in many respects.

While many aspects of the TSIs are proceeding smoothly, the European Rail Traffic

Management System (ERTMS), a thrust to achieve open systems signalling (see §4.4.7.5

for more information), is having a rocky ride. It is perceived to be expensive, and uptake

has been slow. Nevertheless, Europe, and many other countries, need such a system, and

many stakeholders watch progress keenly. So far, the technology has also been applied in

China.

Europe is arguably the furthest advanced in the field of standards, but it is working

within a socio-cultural system, and the end state is not yet clear, much less implemented.

Nevertheless, it already commands a critical mass in railway purchasing power, and is

growing faster than others, (Roland Berger, 2008). Hence, it has strong influence on

railway standards, particularly regarding passenger applications. Countries that do not

have the wherewithal to develop their own standards, or the purchasing power to assert

themselves in the global market, should take European standards seriously. However,

Europe tends to be a high-price source, so it would be prudent to maintain awareness of

other sources.

4.3.8.3 North American influences

North America is arguably the world leader in standardization of freight rail technology.

Its AAR standards are widely used by competitive and sustainable railways around the

world. In the passenger equipment market, it also builds heavy rail commuter cars,

particularly double deck stock to AAR standards, for regional services. However, it no

longer has an indigenous urban rail industry, and companies such as Alstom,

Bombardier, Hyundai Rotem, Kawasaki, and Siemens have moved in, bringing in

European influence and products, particularly in the light rail market space.

Like Europe, functionally separate metro systems need not interoperate, and generally

cannot. There is for example no uniform train protection or train stop system (Private

- 60 -

communication, 2008). However, an attractive communication-based signalling solution

is emerging in the United States (see §4.4.7.5 for more information). It could be the way

to go for moderate density services, and can ultimately offer moving block for maximum

capacity. Countries that do not have the wherewithal to develop their own standards, or

the purchasing power to assert themselves in the global market, should watch this

development closely.

4.3.8.4 A way forward

As railways have increasingly shifted from their own specifications to buying what the

market offers, a convergence of sorts is taking place. The process is ongoing, but is far

from complete. As the supply industry globalized, they responded with industry standard

solutions in each market niche. Formal interoperability standards have generally

followed rather than led the emergence of each technology mutation. In contemplating

passenger railway technology for South Africa, one must look forward to global

specifications. Until they materialize, let the buyer beware.

While backwards compatibility and interoperability, and the standards that

regulate them, are important, they need to be tempered by opportunities to

implement new technologies immediately. It is therefore prudent to position

railways such that they can reap the benefits of new technologies whenever such

opportunities arise.

4.4 Essential passenger rail technologies

4.4.1 Tapping into the mainstream

This Section identifies and discusses technology issues that mediate between the

mainstream solutions described in §4.3, and their migration to South Africa. The purpose

is to develop an appreciation of considerations that should inform selection of

prospective sources of equipment and rolling stock, or of designs for local manufacture.

4.4.2 Basic infrastructure system parameters

4.4.2.1 The guideway subsystem

Consider the following guideway technology attributes of passenger trains:

Passenger trains, particularly multiple unit sets and light rail vehicles

with a high proportion of motored axles, can negotiate comparatively

steep gradients. This ability ensures easy fit with existing built- or

natural environment, and minimizes environmental impact and its

alter ego, construction cost. It does however render optimally graded

passenger infrastructure incompatible with freight trains, which

require easy gradients.

Low speed rail applications can accommodate tight curves: Legacy

infrastructure can accommodate even heavy freight trains. However,

as speed rises, the minimum curve radius increases approximately

with the square37

of the speed. Raising passenger train speeds beyond

37 That is, doubling the train speed requires curve radii four times larger.

- 61 -

existing posted curve speed limits on legacy infrastructure therefore

soon runs into a wall of curve speed limits.

Passenger train axle loads are comparatively low. They vary from

similar to road vehicles, i.e. around 10 tonnes, to rarely more than 20

tonnes. At such low axle loads, the most serious issue is design of

long-span structures. Rail freight traffic is generally uncompetitive,

and hence unsustainable, at such low axle loads. Burdening passenger

railways with structures that are strong enough to carry heavy freight

trains could render them unaffordable.

Although passenger train axle load may be comparatively low, speed

can be relatively high. High-speed passenger track is therefore strong,

using heavy rails and heavy sleepers, to keep track geometry within

tight limits without undue maintenance outage. While such track may

appear suitable for freight traffic, heavy freight trains are generally not

welcome, due to the risk of dragging equipment, flat wheels,

wheelspin, and worse.

In general, guideway characteristics optimized for passenger trains are not compatible

with competitive freight trains. While one should not compromise the safety and

integrity of a system by insisting on universal traffic access, it may not always be

affordable or possible to segregate freight and passenger traffic. It is therefore important

to appreciate that where freight and passenger trains share infrastructure, it compromises

one or other, if not both of them. Appreciate that long-distance passenger trains in North

America, running on freight-oriented infrastructure, and freight trains in Western Europe,

running on passenger-oriented infrastructure, are stepchildren on their respective

infrastructures.

4.4.2.2 The energy supply subsystem

The following energy supply technology considerations apply to passenger trains:

Low-density passenger routes use diesel traction. Contemporary diesel

traction offers low emissions, quiet running, and good performance.

Where traffic density is sufficiently high, the lower cost of electric

energy, less the capital and operating costs of electrification

infrastructure, may undercut the relatively higher cost of diesel fuel.

Several system integrators now offer basic rolling stock designs,

particularly locomotives and regional multiple unit sets, with a choice

of diesel- or electric propulsion (and, sometimes, even both).

Electricity supply may be continuous, intermittent, or discrete.

Continuous supply requires conductors running the length of the

guideway. An overhead supply typically uses a wire catenary system,

but may use a rigid conductor in tunnels, to minimize the size of the

tunnel bore.

Overhead conductors are safe for the public and maintenance workers:

They are energized at 25kV ac in modern systems, and 3kV dc (or

less) in legacy systems.

- 62 -

Urban railways can perform adequately on 3kV dc—indeed, many

metros run on power supplies as low as 600V dc.

To the extent that new networks, or extensions to existing networks,

would not interoperate with legacy systems, 25kV ac would be the

appropriate power supply.

Alternatively, underground railways may use an electrified third rail,

mounted on insulators between- or next to the running rails, where

providing sufficient clearance for an overhead conductor is

unjustifiably expensive.

For safety, third rail is generally restricted to no more than 850V. The

conductor may be open, with top contact, or shrouded with bottom

contact (see photo) to mitigate the risk of electrocution.

Third rail is more robust against mechanical damage (compare with

pantograph hookups in overhead systems), but unsuitable for freight

trains, because their power transmission capacity is relatively low.

Existing intermittent supplies use a segmented, switchable, third rail.

Segments are energized sequentially under a train, so that exposed

conductor rail is completely safe for workers and public38

. The

solution is expensive, used over short distances where overhead

wiring is aesthetically unacceptable.

See §4.4.7.4 for forthcoming discrete energy supply developments.

4.4.2.3 The signaling- and safety subsystem

Consider the following signaling- and safety technology attributes of passenger trains:

High acceleration- and retardation rates characterize contemporary

passenger trains, particularly multiple units. Passenger comfort limits

these rates, usually to no more than 1m/s2.

Maximum speed, and frequency of stops, is aligned with the purpose

of the system. Acceleration, deceleration, speed, and stopping

frequency can be optimized for passenger capacity39

, or journey

time40

.

Passenger throughput is in both cases also a function of train length, a

parameter that strongly influences station design.

38 The first breakthrough came in Bordeaux, in 2003,

39 Maximum passenger capacity with relatively frequent stops can be achieved by rapid acceleration and

retardation, and relatively low speed.

40 Minimum journey time with relatively infrequent stops can achieved by moderate acceleration and

retardation, and relatively high speed.

- 63 -

Higher speed requires braking distance to increase approximately with

the square of speed41

. Faster trains thus require more headway than

slower trains, and thereby reduce line capacity for a given train length.

Signalling to support high capacity trains and high-speed trains on the

same infrastructure is more complex (and hence more expensive) than

signalling for the one or the other.

It is evident that high capacity- and high-speed passenger railway

systems are not easy bedfellows. They should therefore be segregated

to the extent possible. The contention between freight- and passenger

train signalling requirements is potentially even greater. The

contention between freight and passenger trains may be manageable

on intercity routes where line capacity might accommodate a small

number of high-speed trains: It would likely be unmanageable on a

route signaled for high capacity or high speed.

Contemporary high capacity or high-speed rail systems generally use

automatic train protection (ATP) to eliminate human operator error.

ATP ensures that trains exceed neither their movement authorities nor

their speed authorities, whether permanent or temporary. If a train

driver were to exceed his or her authority, then the ATP system would

intervene by making a brake application to keep the train within the

applicable authority. Under specific conditions, it may make an

emergency brake application that brings the train to rest.

The performance variation among trains should ideally be small, so

that an ATP system can quickly discriminate between variation due to

differences among individual trains and variation due to train driver

error. Contemporary rolling stock features systems to minimize

performance variations among trains (see §4.4.4.1).

It is axiomatic that an ATP system cannot provide full protection

where some trains are fitted with ATP and others are not. Ideally, all

trains running on a protected route should be appropriately equipped.

Compromises are nevertheless possible where, say, occasional freight

trains use a passenger-oriented line.

4.4.3 Track-gauge-related infrastructure parameters

4.4.3.1 Platform height and width

Platform dimensions are not necessarily related to track

gauge, but they have nevertheless come to be closely

associated with track gauge on many narrow gauge

railways. In several countries (including South Africa),

the comparatively narrow portion below platform level,

shown at right, is a critical difference between narrow

gauge vehicle profiles and standard gauge (or broad

gauge) vehicle profiles. The origin of this feature is not

41 That is, if speed is doubled, braking distance is approximately quadrupled.

- 64 -

clear, but quite possibly it stemmed from attempts to increase the cubic capacity of

freight and passenger vehicles within the constraint of platforms existing at the time. The

only possibility to increase vehicle width, without apparent cost42

, was above platform

height.

Standard gauge vehicle profiles continue full width down to within 200-400mm of rail

level. This allows usably proportioned double-deck passenger coaches and, where

applicable, well wagons for double stacked containers. In passenger context, a full-width

vehicle profile is frequently associated with low-level platforms for intercity or regional

trains. Platforms at or near rail level simply do not constrain vehicle profiles, for either

freight- or passenger traffic. Where high- or intermediate level platforms are provided on

standard gauge railways, they are sized to accommodate full vehicle body width.

Level entry43

is important for high-capacity passenger rail systems, because it influences

dwell time at stations and hence cycle time, which in turn influence throughput in

passengers per hour per direction and fleet size. Therefore, most metro-, light rail-, and

even bus rapid transit systems, strive to provide platform and rolling stock floors at the

same height.

Intercity- and regional train operators tend to take a more relaxed view on

platform height, noting that station dwell time is not a capacity showstopper, and

that their existence is in many instances symbiotic with competitive freight trains

using the same route.

This reasoning does not lose sight of universal access requirements. Where ideal level

entry is not possible, and outside metro environments there are many sites where it is not

possible, on-board or on-station wheelchair lifts can ensure compliance.

4.4.3.2 Horizontal alignment

In addition to the obvious impact on new construction, note that if allowable speed were

to be increased above present speed on existing (1067mm gauge) intercity lines, the

many curves that would then carry speed limits could be candidates for straightening. In

many instances this will require land outside the present reserve.

If track gauge were changed to standard gauge, and the speed raised even more, the land

required would likely be even more.

If speed were to be increased on existing alignment, many transition curves would need

to be made longer, to avoid a perceptible jerk as vehicles enter and leave curves. This

may also influence additional land requirements.

42 It can only be without cost if one ignores the opportunity cost of not dealing with the root problem.

When railways dominated land transport, the opportunity cost was arguably zero. Now that sustainability

of narrow gauge railways is under threat, the opportunity cost of not liberating a constrained vehicle profile

could be decisive.

43 That is, platform height and vehicle floor height should be the same.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_Rapid_Transit

- 65 -

4.4.3.3 Vertical alignment

The physical size of traction motors, and hence their length, determines their power and

tractive effort. Their length in turn is determined by the distance between the wheels of a

locomotive into which traction motors must fit. It is shorter on narrow gauge

locomotives than on standard gauge locomotives. This means that, all other things being

equal, narrow gauge locomotives will have less power and tractive effort than standard

gauge locomotives. This issue has been addressed by the Rail Gauge Working Group

(National Transport, 2009d). Narrow gauge locomotives for regional trains may

therefore have difficulty accommodating adequately sized traction motors. Narrow gauge

regional rail services could thus be sensitive to gradients on relatively steeply graded

routes44

. Multiple units could provide more power of course, simply because there can be

many more traction motors on a train than on a locomotive.

4.4.3.4 Vertical curvature

Vertical curvature is the radius over a crest or through a sag. If train speed is too high in

relation to vertical curvature, passengers may experience the uncomfortable sensation

that their internal organs rise or fall. Since 1974, lines in South Africa were built with

vertical curves of approximately 10 000m radius. They are good for 200km/h. Lines built

prior to 1974 would only be suitable for lower speeds. For example, the existing

Pretoria-Johannesburg vertical alignment pushes limits at 150km/h (South African

Transport, 1980b).

If re-gauging or dual-gauging to standard gauge is contemplated, the system performance

regime will likely change, in which case it will be necessary to revisit vertical curvature.

In this sense, vertical curvature is indeed not a function of track gauge, but of changing

track gauge.

4.4.3.5 Signal spacing

In principle, track gauge should not affect signal spacing. However, if re-gauging or

dual-gauging to standard gauge is contemplated, the system performance regime will

likely change due to higher axle load and/or speed, in which case it will be necessary to

revisit signal spacing. In this sense, signal spacing is indeed not a function of track

gauge, but of changing track gauge.

4.4.4 Basic rolling stock system parameters

4.4.4.1 The train braking- and propulsion subsystem

High traction and braking performance helps to maximize the number of passengers per

direction per hour that a rail system can convey through a given corridor, or to minimize

the journey time over a long distance. Passenger comfort is a fundamental requirement:

Regarding braking and propulsion, it is essential that passengers do not topple over and

perhaps injure themselves as trains accelerate and retard. The passenger comfort limit,

which is used several times in this document, requires that acceleration and retardation

be limited to around 1m/s2.

44 Note that this explanation applies only to locomotive-hauled regional trains. Traction motors on multiple

unit stock are comparatively small (around 200kW), and although high- and ultra high speed multiple units

use more powerful traction motors (around 600kW), narrow gauge track does not support such speeds.

- 66 -

While performance variance among trains may be tolerable in a low capacity, lightly

stressed system, consistent train performance is a fundamental requirement for high

capacity and high-speed systems. High performance rolling stock manages passenger

comfort and performance variation by means of the following design features:

Fixed formation trains, usually multiple unit sets, narrow the

performance variation among individual trains45

, so that variation in

performance attributable to variation in train composition cannot

challenge train drivers.

Load weighing ascertains the passenger load in each car, and feeds it

back to the braking and propulsion control system. The latter increases

or decreases braking- and tractive effort in proportion to passenger

load, so that acceleration and retardation are constant, irrespective of

whether a train is empty or full. It typically associates with air springs,

which also offer good riding and self-leveling.

A high proportion of motored axles supports consistent high

acceleration, by diluting the effect of wheelslip at any particular axle.

Wheelslide- and wheelslip control systems enhance adhesion

utilization, and give consistent acceleration and retardation

irrespective of rail- and weather conditions46

.

Where so equipped, automatic train protection systems (see §4.4.2.3) and automatic train

operation systems (§4.4.7.6) can leverage system capacity even more, the more

predictably trains perform.

4.4.4.2 The passenger capacity subsystem

Several rolling stock features facilitate high passenger capacity:

Station dwell time is a significant determinant of cycle time,

particularly for high capacity systems47

. The number of doors per car

side, their width, and their opening- and closing speed, determine the

rate at which passengers can enter or leave. Cars frequently have at

least two doors per side, but as many as four are not unknown.

Level entry from platform to car floor encourages people to move

quickly, and does not impede special needs passengers. Self-leveling

air suspension keeps floor height within a close tolerance despite

variation in passenger load.

45 The performance of locomotive-hauled trains, where the number of coaches could vary, and of motor

coach trains, where the ratio of trailer coaches to motor coaches could vary, depends on train composition.

46 Motorists know the functionality as anti-lock braking (ABS) and traction control system (TCS), although

railways were there many years before road vehicles.

47 The longer the cycle time, the longer the end-to-end time, and the more rolling stock is required to

deliver a given capacity.

- 67 -

Full width inter-circulation gangways between cars increase usable

floor space, and allow passengers to spread more evenly throughout a

train, yielding a capacity increase per

train of around 11%.

Floor area determines how many

seated passengers and standees a car

can accommodate. It is influenced by

vehicle profile width and car length.

To the extent that it is possible to

choose, one should maximize vehicle

length and width48

.

Double-deck coaches offer an alternative way to increase floor area.

Their configuration renders it difficult to provide more than two doors

per side. Their prime application is therefore regional services, over

longer distances with fewer intermediate stops, where dwell time is

not a significant driver of cycle time.

This report does not discuss seating density and the ratio of seated passengers to

standees. The operator or owner should select this ratio depending on where in the

market it wishes to position the service offering.

4.4.4.3 The ambience subsystem

Research has found that, as Economic Freedom and Gross National Income advance,

passengers’ expectations of public transport rise (Van der Meulen & Möller, 2006).

From a passenger rail technology perspective, the following two fields49

address

passengers’ rising expectations:

Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) have almost come

to be taken for granted in all economies, because they diminish the

hassle of using public transport. Furthermore, air conditioning

provides filtered air to exclude dust stirred up by turbulence around

moving trains. This helps to keep coach interiors clean—an item in

SARCC’s mission (South African Rail, 2008/09). It is significant that

railways increasingly use white or other light colour to finish their

trains—it makes a clear statement about their cleanliness.

Noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH) is the other area where

substantial progress and market uptake is evident. In Europe, trains

are expected to beat cars in this regard, to lure motorists onto trains.

At least in the interior, their trains are silent, vibration-free, and

equipment works smoothly. In a competitive market, and with an eye

on the likely advances in passengers’ expectations over the economic

life of rolling stock, there is no justification for accepting NVH in new

rolling stock.

48 Note that one must sometimes trade off width and length against each other. Where small-radius curves

are present, a longer car might need to be narrower, particularly where platforms are involved.

49 Note that HVAC and NVH are not track gauge dependent.

- 68 -

Contemporary passenger rolling stock designs provide a foundation for proper attention

to HVAC and NVH. In particular, non-opening windows50

, sliding plug doors, and full-

profile inter-car shrouds, which isolate passengers from external dust and noise, are

taken for granted.

4.4.5 Track-gauge-related rolling stock parameters

4.4.5.1 Riding quality

The most significant determinants of riding quality are vibration and impact of the

vehicles, i.e. the lateral, vertical, and longitudinal acceleration felt by passengers. Note

that, subjectively, perceived riding quality is also influenced by heating, ventilation, and

air conditioning (HVAC), and noise, vibration, and harshness (NVH), which aspects are

dealt with in §4.4.4.3. Riding quality depends on vehicle and track attributes: From a

vehicle perspective, it is influenced by suspension characteristics, structural stiffness, and

coupling arrangements, as the following contemporary good practices for passenger

stock explain:

Air springs support desirable characteristics. They are essential on

metro stock, which must accommodate the large mass variation

between empty cars and a frequently indeterminate crush load. They

are also valuable on long-distance stock, to prevent bogie vibrations

from exciting irritating body bending vibrations.

Slack-free drawgear and inter-car connectors between the vehicles of

a multiple unit set minimize longitudinal disturbances.

As an example of good riding quality on narrow gauge, South Africans need look no

further than the Blue Train. Even the technology of 37 years ago provides riding quality

that is highly regarded by any standards.

Note that the foregoing applies to the natural domain of narrow gauge passenger trains,

i.e. single deck and low speed. Outside those parameters, standard gauge is required to

extend riding quality to double deck trains at the highest levels of speed, fro example

France’s TGV Duplex double deck design that runs at 300km/h between Paris and Lyon.

4.4.5.2 Vehicle profile

Vehicle profile is defined by the height and width of a railway vehicle. It relates railway

vehicles to fixed structures through which they pass. They are therefore also known as

loading gauge or kinetic envelope51

. The profile may be rounded or shaped at the top and

bottom corners. The global urban rail setting still requires many diverse vehicle profiles.

Suppliers align profiles as best they can in a competitive setting, but many legacy

systems remain that have peculiar though rigid requirements.

50 In low- and moderate speed applications, it is customary to provide small hopper windows that

passengers may open for emergency ventilation.

51 Railways in some countries take into account the movement of trains on their suspensions to determine

what is known as a kinetic envelope. The kinetic envelope plus clearance then determines the minimum

dimensions of fixed structures. This approach can optimally utilize limited clearance. However, the

recommendation in this Section is wide enough to obviate the need for such refinement.

- 69 -

Regarding height, the critical passenger rail technology question, is whether it permits

double decking. It is generally possible to accommodate two full-height passenger decks

on standard gauge track. Double decking has already

been implemented on narrow gauge—in South Africa

circa 1936, and in Japan in 1989. The latter applications

both squeezed two decks into their respective single-deck

vehicle profiles. The South African design arranged the

seats longitudinally: In the double deck section, the

lower deck walkway was under the upper deck seats, and

the upper deck walkways were above the lower level

seats. It did not progress beyond a single prototype.

Japanese designs typically provide double deck cars for additional seating in green cars,

their superior class. Squeezing two decks into a single

deck profile means that many passengers have to stoop to

move about the double deck section. These two examples

are provided for completeness, and to illustrate that

double deck coaches are not workable on narrow gauge.

Regarding width, the UIC series Energy Efficiency

Technologies for Railways lists wide-body stock (Wide

body, undated) as having the potential to decrease energy

consumption by >10%, through increasing the floor area and thereby being able to carry

more passengers in a given train length. See also §4.2.2.2 in this regard. The diagrams

show the widths (horizontal bars) and heights (vertical bars) for South Africa and the

globally significant heavyweights.

3050

3105

3150

3200

3250

3250

3251

3400

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

South Africa

China (Passenger)

Europe

North America (Passenger)

Russia

India

North America (Freight)

China (Freight)

- 70 -

39654140

42804420

4724 4800 4828

5300

6147

0

6500

So

uth

Afr

ica

Ind

ia

Eu

rop

e

Nort

h A

me

rica

(Pa

sse

ng

er,

sin

gle

de

ck)

Nort

h A

me

rica

(Fre

igh

t, P

late

C)

Chin

a

Nort

h A

me

rica

(Pa

sse

ng

er,

do

ub

le

de

ck) R

ussia

Nort

h A

me

rica

(Do

ub

le S

tack)

A country that contemplates changing track gauge would miss the point if it

changed only gauge but retained a constrained vehicle profile52. It should rethink

the basis on which it determines platform height and width, with a view to

maximizing the allowable vehicle profile while it changes gauge.

For a relatively small change, to a minimum height of 4420mm, and to a minimum

width of 3250mm, South Africa could position itself to acquire rolling stock

designs, or actual vehicles, from a wide variety of sources, in almost any country.

A recommendation is made in this regard (see §6.2.2).

4.4.5.3 Track centre distance

A change in vehicle width is not a simple matter. The impact on track centre distances on

main lines and in yards, and the location of clearance marks at converging tracks, are but

two of the issues.

4.4.5.4 Vehicle length

Metro vehicles: Metros usually operate within confined rights of way, which introduce

small-radius curves on parts of the system. Tight curves may require a narrower body

due to throw to the outside of curves, and offset to the inside of curves. In such

situations, it is necessary to tradeoff vehicle length against vehicle width. Therefore, few

metro cars are longer than 20-22 meters.

52 The maximum vehicle profile width may be a nominal value. In curves, the throw of the ends to the

outside, and the offset of the centre to the inside, usually require vehicle bodies to be slightly narrower.

- 71 -

Mainline vehicles: Standard-gauge mainline passenger vehicles tend to be longer than

narrow gauge vehicles. Standard North American passenger coaches are 25,9m (85’0‖)

or 26,2m (86’0‖) long, depending on bogie centre distance. European coaches can be as

long as 26.4m. Few narrow-gauge passenger vehicles are materially longer than 20-21m.

The number of narrow gauge coaches required for a given capacity is therefore likely to

be higher than for standard gauge coaches. Railway vehicles have a direct cost

component, whatever their length, in respect of brake gear, drawgear, and running gear.

Passenger vehicles have additional direct cost components in respect of inter-vehicle

connections, end- and side doors, passenger information systems, toilets, and so on.

Hence, unduly short coaches drive costs up.

4.4.5.5 Speed and stability

The height of the centre-of-gravity of a loaded railway vehicle, relative to track gauge,

influences its stability—with respect to rolling motion on straight track, and with respect

to overturning on curved track. The height of a coach, and hence its centre of gravity, is

determined by the size of people that it must convey, and by the dimensions of running

gear such as wheels and bogies. People and running gear do not scale down for narrow

track gauge, so the centre of gravity height stays the same whatever the track gauge. To

maintain the same safety against overturning and unstable running, speed must be

reduced for narrow gauge trains.

Allowable speed is also determined by the interaction of track quality and vehicle

suspension. Both can be specially prepared and rigorously maintained. South Africa set

the world narrow gauge speed record of 245km/h in 1978. It also operated the Metroblitz

service between Pretoria and Johannesburg at 160km/h in the early 1980s. Both were of

short duration on specially fettled track: It is questionable whether such speeds could be

sustainable with commercial grade track maintenance.

Australia’s QR Tilt Train53

is also an interesting application. It features a maximum

speed of 160km/h, on 1067mm track gauge. However, its average speed from Brisbane

to Rockhampton is 78km/h, and from Rockhampton to Cairns it is 69km/h. Even South

Africa’s Premier Classe maintains an average speed of 63km/h between Johannesburg

and Cape Town, or 70% of its maximum speed of 90km/h. High-speed trains typically

average 70-80% of their maximum speed. One would therefore expect the Tilt Train to

average around 120km/h. The only conclusion must be

that the QR Tilt Train does not run long distances at 160

km/h—apparently only on a few specially fettled

sections, more between Brisbane and Rockhampton than

between Rockhampton and Cairns.

Japan’s 1067mm gauge fast trains run at a maximum

speed of 130km/h. It is interesting to note that Japan’s

second prototype Gauge Change Train (shown at right),

designed to run on both narrow gauge (1067mm) and

standard gauge (1435mm) has a maximum speed of

130km/h on narrow gauge and 270km/h on standard

53 Tilting trains are examined in more detail in §4.4.5.6.

- 72 -

gauge (Gauge change, undated)54

.

It therefore evident that 130km/h should be considered the maximum commercially

sustainable speed on 1067mm gauge.

4.4.5.6 Body tilting

When trains pass through curves, passengers experience lateral, or sideways, acceleration

towards the outside of a curve. It can become uncomfortable, and may make it difficult

for passengers and service personnel to move around, if it exceeds 1m/s2. The outer rail

in a curve is therefore usually raised, or superelevated, to compensate for the lateral

acceleration, so that the train leans to the inside of a curve, much as a motorcyclist leans

into a curve. Slower trains using the line, which need less superelevation, compromise

and limit the amount of superelevation that a builder or maintainer can apply.

Body tilting, which tilts a railway vehicle body inwards on its bogies in a curve, to

counteract the lateral acceleration felt by passengers, can increase speed through curves.

Ultimately, safety against overturning limits the amount of tilt. On standard gauge

railways that speed may be up to 35% higher than for conventional trains (New

Pendolino, undated). However, as mentioned in §4.4.3.4, the centre of gravity height of a

railway vehicle stays the same whatever the track gauge, and the factor of safety against

overturning is less on narrow gauge. The amount by which a train can safely tilt on

narrow gauge track allows a speed some 10% higher than for non-tilting stock (South

African Transport, 1980a). On 90-100km/h mainlines, that could provide around 10km/h

higher speed through curves, which is hardly worth the extra cost and complexity of

providing and maintaining tilting equipment. On branch lines with allowable curve speed

in the range 30-60km/h, the gain would be 3-6km/h, which is arguably not worth

pursuing at all.

Experience in Sweden has shown that new generation trains without tilting capability,

but with higher rates of acceleration and deceleration, can maintain the same timings as

earlier generations of tilting trains with lower rates of acceleration and deceleration

(Briginshaw, 2008). One should expect the gain from higher performance over tilting

capability to be more pronounced on narrow gauge railways.

In Japan, tilting trains are deployed on some regional services on 1067mm track gauge.

Their pendular mechanism allows the vehicle body to swing outwards from a high virtual

pivot point, with pneumatic assistance. The maximum amount of tilt is smaller than for

standard gauge, as explained above.

54 The question of applicability of gauge change trains to South Africa will inevitably arise. The Railway

Gauge Working Group (National Transport … , 2009g) examined a high-speed railway line between

Gauteng and Durban, and among other found that certain portions of the route may need to be designed for

comparatively low speed due to the ruggedness of the terrain. It is conceivable that high-speed deviations

could be built to standard gauge in easy terrain, while the line would converge on the existing narrow

gauge line in rugged terrain. The train could change gauge as required, and even use narrow gauge to

access existing termini and stops en route. Japan’s gauge change train project started in 1994, and is now

on its second prototype, with a third expected in 2010. Its availability and reliability track record is still in

the making. Gauge changing is done by driving the train through a gauge changer at 10km/h, which would

lengthen journey time if undertaken too frequently. Overall, this notion will probably not sustain much

enthusiasm.

- 73 -

Japanese tilting technology was exported to Australia for QR’s Tilt Train in 1998. One of

the trains derailed in 2004, due to it entering a curve too fast, apparently due to the driver

being disoriented with respect to where the train was, or

distracted (Cairns Tilt, undated). The derailment scene is

shown at right. Following the derailment, the speed of all

tilt trains was limited to 100km/h until the cause had

been established and remedial intervention implemented.

After track upgrades and installation of automatic train

protection, among other to ensure compliance with curve

speed restrictions, the service was restored to 160km/h in

2007.

The Tilt Train derailment surfaces the concept of critical curve speed, i.e. the speed at

which any train, whether tilting or not55

can negotiate a curve without overturning, albeit

with passenger discomfort and fright, and possibly injury. For a maximum train speed of

160km/h, curves under 900-1000m radius pose the risk of an inattentive driver exceeding

the critical curve speed and derailing the train (South African Transport, 1980c). QR’s

160km/h Tilt Train derailed on a curve with a posted limit of only 60km/h. Existing

South African mainlines have many curves of less than 1000m radius, leaving no margin

for error at such speed. At a maximum speed of 130km/h, the radius for critical curve

speed reduces to 550-600m, which passes many more mainline curves as safe.

Nevertheless, noting the Australian experience, it would not be prudent to implement

tilting trains on existing main lines without ATP.

All told, the case for raising maximum commercial train speeds to higher than

130km/h on narrow gauge incurs rapidly diminishing running time gains for

materially higher risk, and concomitant cost of mitigating it. The attractiveness of

contemplating higher speeds on existing alignment and -track gauge recedes the

more one analyses the concomitant issues.

4.4.6 Matching infrastructure- and rolling stock parameters

For many transport modes, high user diversity makes it unworkable to match

infrastructure parameters with individual user parameters. The result is usually a one-

size-fits-all solution, such as roads that must accommodate vehicles ranging from non-

motorized transport to heavy interlinks56

. By contrast, rail infrastructure users are

relatively less diverse than users of infrastructure of other transport modes. With rail it is

workable, and frequently desirable, to closely match infrastructure and rolling stock

parameters. Note the specialization of heavy haul-, high-speed intercity-, heavy

intermodal-, and urban railway applications, each of which each has an optimum

infrastructure/rolling stock match. Then compare them with, for example, segregated

truck lanes, bus- and high occupancy vehicle lanes, and haul roads for dump trucks and

road-trains: While such specialized matching is only applied in extreme road transport

situations, some would question its value in naturally enhancing the competitiveness of

rail transport.

55 Note that as a train approaches overturning speed in a curve, body tilting is of no value in preventing

overturning—it only influences passenger comfort.

56 This situation underlies the unfair user charge controversy, where trucks allegedly pay lower licence-

and toll fees than cars in proportion to the degradation they cause.

- 74 -

Competitive and sustainable rail is not a one-size-fits-all mode. Infrastructure and

rolling stock parameters need to be matched closely. Where compromises are

made from time to time, the consequent sub-optimization needs to be identified

and accounted.

4.4.7 Significant new global developments

4.4.7.1 Dedicated freight- and passenger corridors

From §4.2.1, it is evident that freight rail and passenger rail exploit the strengths of rail’s

genetic technologies in different ways. Indeed, research has revealed that Positioning

Freight Rail and Positioning Passenger Rail are two mutually exclusive determinants of

railway corporate citizenship (Van der Meulen & Möller, 2008b). Further confirmation

of this finding is becoming increasingly visible around the world, as the following

examples illustrate:

Europe’s line haul railways are strongly passenger oriented, almost to

the exclusion of freight service. The European Commission has

therefore launched a process to establish a European rail network for

competitive freight (European Commission, 2008). The modalities are

still being resolved, but the outcome seems likely to resemble the

Ukrainian solution in Bullet 4 below.

The United States situation is opposite—its railroads are strongly

freight oriented, and its long-distance passenger rail agency, Amtrak,

has had to rely on an annual federal appropriation (National

Passenger, 2007a). However, the United States is currently

experiencing an urban rail renaissance, much of it on dedicated light

rail infrastructure (Transit ridership, 2009).

India recently launched construction of its 1279km Eastern Dedicated

Freight Corridor (DFC) from Ludhiana to Sonnagar, the world’s first

separation between parallel freight- and passenger infrastructure.

Thirty-tonne axle load and 100km/h maximum speed distinguish DFC

infrastructure from the existing network. It is set to be followed by the

1483km Western DFC (Dedicated Freight, 2009) from Delhi to

Mumbai. India is also considering high-speed intercity in the Delhi-

Mumbai corridor, and possibly other corridors as well (Planned high-

speed, undated). If the Delhi-Mumbai high-speed project goes ahead,

India will have separate conventional passenger-, dedicated freight-,

and high-speed infrastructures, in the same corridor.

Ukraine has designated several major intercity routes as dedicated

passenger lines to permit operation of 200km/h trains. It is investing

in infrastructure works to enable freight traffic to be diverted to other

lines (Segregation for, 2008).

Appreciate that emerging technologies reflect the setting in which they were

conceived, developed, and implemented. Ultimately, they become battle-proven

solutions that migrate to other settings. Ideally, one should thus consider freight

rail and passenger rail as virtually separate, non-interoperable transport modes.

Future railway development opportunities would do well either to separate

- 75 -

passenger and freight traffic completely or, where affordability and/or traffic

volume do not allow, to recognize that requiring freight and passenger trains to

interoperate on shared infrastructure compromises competitiveness of both.

4.4.7.2 Proprietary trains

Under globalization, railway system integrators have consolidated (and eliminated

duplicate) research-, design-, and production capacity, to form competitive, excellent

sources of systems, subsystems, and equipment. The processes resembled those that took

place earlier in the aircraft- and automotive industries57

. The suppliers have become

more powerful than their former national railway clients, while the latter have become

fragmented. Fragmentation followed vertical separation, where that was introduced, or

parallel competition, where that emerged. Rather than competing to meet the

specifications of many individual customers, system integrators now offer preferred or

standard platforms or vehicles, which they deploy to compete for a share of the global

railway market. The following non-exhaustive list of competitive offerings, mainly from

Europe, which commands the largest market, illustrates the point:

Proprietary urban train brands:

In light rail:

Alstom Citadis,

Bombardier Flexity, and

Siemens Combino.

In metro rail:

Alstom Metropolis,

Bombardier Movia, and

Siemens Metro.

Proprietary mainline- and regional train brands:

Alstom Pendolino (tilting), Coradia,

Bombardier Talent,

Siemens Desiro, Viaggio, Venturio, and

Stadler Flirt.

Proprietary ultra high-speed trains for dedicated lines:

The European Union’s Technical Specifications for Interoperability (TSIs) initially

addressed high speed intercity trains, because they have the greatest medium-term

potential for international services. Trains built to these standards have also had

commercial success outside Europe (e.g. Korea’s KTX). It is thus interesting that

57 And many other industries for that matter, too.

- 76 -

Kawasaki sees a global market outside Japan (New 350km/h, 2008). The following are

current examples that comply (or will comply) with the TSIs:

Alstom AGV (Automotrice Grande Vitesse),

Bombardier Zefiro (carbody in UIC or wide profile),

Kawasaki efSET (Environmentally Friendly Super Express Train)

(UIC body width), and

Siemens Velaro (two body widths), Venturio.

These trains have been developed speculatively by the respective system integrators, in a

way similar to development of commercial aircraft by Airbus and Boeing. Just as airlines

cannot afford to develop their own aircraft, railway operators can no longer afford to

develop their own trains. Expect Hyundai Rotem of Korea, which has developed high-

speed trains for the Korean domestic market, to join the international fray in due course.

4.4.7.3 Intraoperability

Intraoperability addresses the question of reusability, or sharing, of train subsystems

across a wide range of products built by several system integrators, to increase

standardization and reduce costs. To illustrate, there is no reason why a plug door on an

Alstom metro train should not be functionally interchangeable with one on a Bombardier

or a Siemens train, or why a metro train in Mumbai should have plug doors that are not

functionally interchangeable with those in Shenzhen, and so on. Of course, several

suppliers could manufacture modular doors, to ensure competition. System integrators

should thus compete for integrated solutions, not for lower tier subsystems such as doors,

pantographs, pneumatics, and the many other subsystems that make up a train.

This process will concentrate supplier centres of excellence even further, and will affect

countries that aspire to build indigenous rolling stock. The following two European

Union projects, paraphrased from Railway Gauge Working Group (2009d), represent

significant efforts in this field:

The MODTRAIN (for Innovative Modular Vehicle Concepts for an

Integrated European Railway System) project started in 2004 for four

years. It set out to define and prove the necessary functional,

electrical, and mechanical interfaces and validation procedures to

deliver a range of interchangeable modules, to form the basis for the

next generation of fixed-formation passenger trains and universal

locomotives capable of 200 km/h or more. The sponsors hoped

ultimately to embrace all rolling stock likely to operate over both the

high-speed and conventional interoperable networks across Europe.

The project embraced running gear, control and monitoring system,

on-board power system, man-machine and train-to-train interfaces.

The concept of modularity aimed at economic advantages for both

railway suppliers and operators, such as reduced manufacturing cost

and economies of scale, increased productivity of new rolling stock,

as well as increased reliability founded on a rise in proportion of

service-proven components in new rolling stock designs. The project's

economic advantages together with the technical solutions fulfilled the

objectives of increased railway competitiveness and interoperability.

- 77 -

The Modular Urban Guided Rail System project, or MODUrban, brought

together all major rail industry suppliers and all major rail operators in

Europe. The main target of the project was to design, develop, and test

innovative and open common core system architecture and its key

interfaces, covering command control, energy saving, and access

subsystems, paving the way for the next generations of urban-guided

public transport systems. This approach will be applied to new lines as

well as the renewal and extension of existing lines, and will encourage

cost effective migration from driver to driverless operation. It will also

mitigate the risk of new rolling stock and subsystems being built from

unproven prototype sub-assemblies.

4.4.7.4 Discrete energy supply

The cost of distributing energy to trains is a significant component of total infrastructure

cost in urban railway applications. The cost of electrification infrastructure is crucial for

marginal rail applications, such as Light Rail. Indeed, arch competitor bus rapid transit,

which avoids the cost of overhead electrification, marshals this argument as a selling

point.

Until recently, technology has not supported economic storage of traction energy on

board trains. Energy supplies have therefore had to be continuous, either overhead wire

or third rail, perhaps with lineside equipment to recover energy regenerated during

braking. Development of ultra-capacitors, which can economically store sufficient

energy on board, has made it possible to recover braking energy and reuse it during

acceleration. Only the modest energy consumption to overcome resistance to motion

between stops needs an external supply. There are prospects of inductive energy transfer

topping up on board energy storage during station dwell time, which will eliminate

electrification infrastructure, and its associated costs, between stations. This technology

is expected to enter the light guided surface transport market in 2013-2014 (Private

communication, 2009). It augurs well for city rail, which has frequent stops, and which is

more energy efficient than road-based competitors such as BRT58

.

4.4.7.5 Communication based train control

Communication based train control, also know as transmission-based train control has

evolved over several years, primarily in Europe and the United States. It comes in

incremental levels of functionality, which railways can overlay on existing signalling

systems, or use as stand-alone systems. Such systems enforce movement authorities and

permanent or temporary speed restrictions, and protect maintenance worksites from

incursion by trains.

The European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) comprises two subsystems,

the European Train Control System (ETCS), a standard for on-board train control, and

GSM-R, a standard for mobile communications for railway usage. ETCS determines

train position by means of balises59

placed between the rails. The overall system

58 Discrete- or inductive power supply can potentially reduce the cost to supply electricity to trains. On the

one hand, this may negate one of the advantages of BRT, which avoids the cost of electrification required

by light rail. On the other hand, liberating BRT from diesel engines, also using inductive energy transfer

and ultra capacitor storage, could make it an even more formidable competitor against light rail.

59 Gautrain will also determine train position by means of balises.

- 78 -

architecture reflects the high-density, passenger-oriented services operated by most

European railways. It is perceived to be expensive, and uptake has been slow.

The United States’ Positive Train Control (PTC) system was developed to be effective

and affordable on freight-oriented railways with lower train densities than in Europe. Its

architecture allows for minimal dependency on, or elimination of, expensive lineside

equipment. It determines accurate train position by means of differential GPS,

supplemented by tachometer, gyro, accelerometers, track databases, and sensor

fusion/map-matching algorithms. The four US Class 1 railroads, BNSF, CSX, Norfolk

Southern, and Union Pacific, have had PTC systems under development for several years

(Drapa et al., 2007).

A head-on collision in California on 12 September 2008,

between a double deck regional passenger train and a

freight train, finally stirred up political action. On 16

October 2008, President Bush signed the Rail Safety

Improvement Act (Rail Safety, 2008), which requires the

implementation of interoperable60

positive train control

systems for Class I freight- and passenger rail carriers by

December 31, 2015. It also authorized $250 million in

federal grants, to support development and installation of

positive train control.

Both systems eliminate the risk of human error in manually operated railway systems.

The functionality should be duly considered as part of proposals to materially raise the

speed of trains, or to change the speed mix on a route by increasing the speed of some

trains.

4.4.7.6 Automatic train operation

This report refers to automatic train operation, so it is appropriate to examine the

technology. An automatic train operation system does what its name says, through

control of acceleration and braking, including terminal braking at specified station-stop

positions, using operating management information and location information received

from lineside equipment. It uses an onboard database containing line data to control train

acceleration and braking to suit relevant conditions, such as curves and gradients,

between and at each station. Balises enable interlocking control between the train doors

and platform gates.

Automatic train operation is sometimes known as driverless operation, although a driver

or attendant may be present. In some systems, the driver or attendant may operate the

train in emergencies at low speed. Where union influence is strong, the driver may press

a button to start the train at each station.

Increasingly, new metro- and light metro systems are being built with automatic train

operation, and existing systems are being converted from manual operation to automatic

60 In this context, interoperability means the ability to control locomotives of the host railroad and tenant

railroad to communicate with and respond to the positive train control system, including uninterrupted

movements over property boundaries.

- 79 -

operation. The following are some key benefits (Driverless metros, undated; Van der

Voort, 1980):

Expenditure for staff is lower. However, service and security

personnel are common in automated systems.

Trains can be shorter and run more frequently, without increasing

expenditure for staff.

Train operators are easily able to vary the service frequency to meet

unexpected demands.

Despite common psychological concerns, driverless metros are safer

than traditional metros. None of them has ever had a serious accident.

Intruder detection systems can be more effective than humans in

stopping the trains if someone is on the tracks.

Energy- and maintenance costs are reduced because trains are driven

to an optimum specification.

An operator or train driver does not need to change ends at terminal

stations, so turn back time can be almost zero (a train returns

immediately after passengers have alighted), reducing the number of

train sets needed for given capacity.

Shorter reaction time reduces headway by ≈10% compared to manual

driving. Alternatively, a three-aspect system could give the headway

of a four-aspect system.

Elimination of collisions allows reduced vehicle end strength,

resulting in lower vehicle tare and lower energy consumption.

In conjunction with the platform screen doors commonly, but not always, used with

automatic train operation, the following benefits also accrue (Platform screen, undated):

People cannot fall- or jump onto the tracks,

Trains enter stations at higher speed,

Draught and air pressure variations caused by trains in tunnels are

reduced,

Platforms are quieter and cleaner,

Stations can be air-conditioned at lower cost in hot climates, and

People cannot throw rubbish on tracks, creating a cleaner environment

and preventing fires.

Of course, screen doors also represent one more set of moving parts to be maintained.

4.4.7.7 Industrial design

Attractive exterior- and interior design attracts users to trains. Studios such as Italdesign/

Guigaro, Pininfarina, and Porsche Design have become active in the railway industry.

Some system integrators also maintain in-house industrial design studios—Bombardier’s

- 80 -

Gautrain design is a striking local example. Draughtspersons do not need to design

trains.

4.5 Alternative guided surface transport technologies

4.5.1 Alternatives to steel-wheel-on-steel-rail

Following the systems approach, contemporary public passenger transport is a complex

competitive system in several respects: It competes for public funds against other

creditable claims, transport modes compete against each other at all levels from local to

national, and system integrators compete against one another with continuously

improving solutions. Guided transport solutions range from bus rapid transit and light

rail, to trains that can cover 1000km in three hours. System integrators have developed a

wide range of highly nuanced solutions, and transport authorities have become spoilt for

choice.

However, reference to §4.2 shows that the railway mode also competes in market spaces

where it is potentially weak, namely those that have low axle load and low speed. In a

competitive setting where organismic adaptation is present, one can confidently predict

that such market spaces will attract alternative solutions from predators.

Predators can offer attractive solutions in particular situations. A study of passenger

railway technology would therefore be incomplete without developing an awareness of

competitors who may encroach on marginal railway positions. The following solutions

are described in sufficient detail to develop that awareness.

4.5.2 Rubber-tyred solutions

4.5.2.1 Heavy Metro

Rubber-tyred heavy metro originated in Paris after World War II. While other drivers

also influenced the development, at that time conventional electric traction did not

support the high adhesion, and hence high acceleration, of which rubber tyres are

capable. Appreciate nevertheless that passenger comfort criteria, discussed in §4.4.4.1,

ultimately limit acceleration and deceleration, whatever the propulsion and braking

arrangements.

Rubber-tyred heavy metros customarily retain flanged steel wheels (like a conventional

steel-wheel-on-steel-rail system), to guide vehicles through turnouts, to provide a

suitable braking surface, and to provide emergency guidance in the case of a flat tyre.

The system is therefore relatively complex. Furthermore, for the same transport task,

rubber-tyres consume more energy than steel tyres. The additional energy is dissipated as

heat, which in turn needs special ventilation measures in underground applications.

With the advent of solid-state power electronics in the 1970s, it became possible for

steel–wheel-on-steel-rail systems to economically and reliably achieve acceleration and

retardation right up to the passenger comfort limit. Since then, the disadvantages of

rubber tyres worked against them. However, advancing automatic train operation, which

works best with highly consistent performance, has seen renewed interest in rubber-tyred

metro. In Paris, Line 1, which was steel–wheel-on-steel-rail, changed to the rubber tyred

format in preparation for automatic train operation (ATO), and Line 14, a new ATO line

that was built to the rubber tyred format, are examples.

- 81 -

4.5.2.2 Automated Light Metro—VAL

Light automated vehicles (VAL and other brands), a non-rail, rubber-tyred, guided

solution is encroaching on the domain of low-to-medium capacity steel-wheel-on-steel-

rail systems in urban areas. In this respect, it bears comparison with bus rapid transit.

Both solutions target rail’s weak low axle-load, low speed, market space. VAL axle

loads are of the same order as heavy road vehicles, and, unsurprisingly, of the same order

as BRT.

VAL’s rubber tyres run on plain concrete or steel

runways, with upstands at the sides to guide trains. The

Taipei system is illustrated at right. The next generation

will replace the side upstands with guidance by a single

centre rail. Its rubber tyres run quietly, a valuable

attribute on elevated guideways. Like any rubber-tyred

solution, it can also handle steeper gradients than steel-

wheel-on-steel-rail.

VAL cleverly repackaged guided surface transport’s essential Bearing and Guiding

genetic technologies, to deliver a competitive solution despite the higher energy

consumption of its the rubber tyres. It is an automated (driverless) system, which offers

short headway, short trains, and near instantaneous turnaround at terminal stations.

Automatic operation eliminates the possibility of collisions, thereby relieving the

lightweight structure of onerous crashworthiness requirements, and offsetting the

relatively higher energy consumption.

In so repackaging basic railway functionality, VAL sharpened operating efficiency to

offer capacity between light rail and metro for small cities. It is also priced between light

rail and metro systems.

The prospect of ultra-capacitors and inductive energy transfer, mentioned in §4.4.7.4, is

making rubber-tyred competitors such as VAL an even more attractive solution for the

urban rail environment—eliminating lineside electrification and replacing it with

recharge during station dwell time could make the next generation Neoval a killer

application in urban guided transport.

VAL can convey up to 30 000 passengers/hour/direction. At the other end of the scale, it

is suitable for small cities. For example, Rennes, the smallest city in France with a metro

(population less than 400 000), uses the VAL system.

Siemens has acquired the VAL system from its originator, Matra, which suggests that the

technology has matured to mainstream urban transport status. Woosan in Korea recently

offered a similar solution.

4.5.3 Monorail

Monorails have found application in a limited number of urban applications, mostly in

Japan. For orientation, it is necessary to distinguish between people-mover grade and

transit grade monorail applications. Many South Africans know only the Nasrec

monorail—a people-mover system. This study considers only transit grade monorails.

- 82 -

Japan is into large-scale monorails61

, and is the only country that has developed

standards for transit grade monorail systems. Noteworthy at the level of this study, is that

the standards require flat floors in the passenger space, with running gear below (this is a

major difference compared with amusement park applications). Above floor level, they

therefore resemble conventional single deck commuter cars. Monorails generally have

rubber tyres, and therefore inherit all the associated advantages and disadvantages. They

are quiet, which makes them attractive for the elevated applications that are their natural

habitat. They can also accommodate comparatively steep

gradients. Although they are less energy efficient than

steel-wheel-on-steel-rail, they generally run on open

guideways, hence the additional energy consumed does

not lead to heating issues.

Monorail’s footprint on existing built environment is

small. It is therefore relatively easier to implement than

surface- or subsurface guided transport. There would

arguably be fewer disturbances of existing services, which can contribute substantially to

total construction cost. Monorail stations also integrate relatively easily inside shopping

malls and other buildings. The eminent domain of monorails is thus situations in which

they need to thread their way through previously well-developed settings, as reference to

most photos of transit grade monorails will confirm.

Axle load is in the range 10-11 tonnes (Kennedy, undated). It is thus in the same league

as BRT, Light Rail, and VAL. See bogie photo. Maximum speed is in the range 50-

70km/h. Guideways can be complex, because cant in curves must be built into the beam.

Monorail offers a medium-capacity of 15 000 passengers/hour/direction (Siemens H-

Bahn, undated). From their key parameters, the closest conventional rail alternative

would be Light Rail: It is self evident that the cost premium of substantial elevated

structures can only be justified where at-grade alignment is simply not economically

viable.

Monorail’s eminent domain is Japan, where high population density and prior

development place a premium on space for new transport corridors. It adapts well to

applications such as orbital routes, with intermodal connections to existing radial urban

rail lines, which are coming into vogue. Mumbai’s recently awarded contract for a

19.5km monorail with 18 stations, including interchanges with existing suburban rail

services and the future metro network, is a fitting example (Mumbai monorail, 2009).

Interestingly, the world’s busiest monorail, a 24km network with six stations that

conveys 150 000 passengers per day, is at Disney World in the United States. Note that

Bombardier has entered the monorail market through a series of acquisitions, among

other Disney’s technology, which suggests that the technology has matured to

mainstream urban transport status. Built environment in South Africa is not yet so dense

that monorail is an indicated mass mobility solution, so it is not considered further in this

report.

61 Monorails use several fundamentally diverse technologies: Straddle (vehicles on top of the guideway

beam) and suspended (vehicles under the guideway beam), mainly rubber or sometimes steel tyres, and

enclosed or open guideways. The material in this section assumes straddle monorails, the most common

transit grade application.

- 83 -

4.5.4 Maglev

Maglev technology has been on the horizon for several decades. It has recently shown

potential as the following timeline indicates:

A Transrapid62

maglev system already links Shanghai Pudong Airport

with Longyang Road station in Pudong. The 430km/h service can

cover the 30km distance in 7 minutes.

However, farebox revenue appears

unable to cover costs. Plans for a

similar system in Munich were

cancelled in 2008, due to unaffordable

cost escalation (Lew, 2008). To be

viable in the 400+km/h speed range,

maglev would need to beat other

modes of guided surface transport on

total life cycle cost, with due regard for value of people’s time and

applicable externalities.

Urban maglev might be next. Korea's first commercial magnetic

levitation train line will be built at Incheon International Airport by

2012 (Korea’s first, 2007). It will operate at a speed of 110km/h. A

company in China is also developing maglev for urban transport, to a

maximum speed of 120km/h (China develops, 2009). At such low

speeds, maglev could likely only compete on project life cycle cost:

One of maglev’s advantages is contactless bearing and guiding,

therefore infrastructure maintenance is low.

Over a longer distance, namely the 420km from Tokyo to Nagoya and

Osaka, Japan’s maglev Chūō Shinkansen now appears set for

completion by 2025 (Chūō Shinkansen, undated). Initial research and

development commenced in the 1970s, so maglev has been long in

coming in a technologically advanced country.

Monorail proponents consider maglev to be a subset of monorail, and indeed there is a

superficial resemblance. However, their case is tenuous, because although the German

Transrapid system looks like a straddle monorail system, the vertical load is borne by

widely spaced levitation magnets, so the vertical guidance is essentially similar to the

two rails of a conventional railway. The Japanese system in no way resembles a

monorail, and if one must have an analogy, it is closer to the channel guideway used by

rubber-tyred metro and VAL.

It is possible that peak oil- and climate change considerations could affect air travel in

the near future. That event might stimulate maglev as an alternative solution for high-

speed medium- to long distance ground travel. Indeed, an airline initiated the original

maglev research in Japan. However, although maglev is an attractive alternative to air

travel over appropriate distances, it has not yet been able to establish a decisive speed

advantage over conventional rail. The current maglev speed record is 581km/h, set by

62 Transrapid International is a German joint company of Siemens and ThyssenKrupp.

- 84 -

JR-Maglev in Japan in 2003. The current rail speed record is 575km/h, set by SNCF in

France in 2007. Maglev energy consumption is marginally lower than rail at the same

speed (Magnetic levitation, undated), while next generation ultra high-speed trains such

as Alstom’s AGV feature permanent magnet traction motors to reduce energy

consumption. Over the years, maglev and rail have competed neck and neck: A maglev

breakthrough into rail’s domain will need a distinct advantage over rail.

Noting that energy consumption rises exponentially with speed, maglev will approach

the same energy consumption as aircraft if it aspires to close the gap between its present

speed and the speed of commercial airliners. Furthermore, commercial airliners fly in

thinner air at high altitude with less drag, and are therefore inherently more energy

efficient than high-speed surface guided transport. However, aircraft use finite fossil fuel

sources, whereas maglev does have the potential to tap renewable sources. When peak

oil does bite, airliners on long overland routes would seem to be maglev’s natural prey.

Testing on Transrapid’s Emsland track is set to cease end June 2009. After 37 years, the

31km Shanghai-Pudong airport link is the world’s only commercial high-speed maglev.

Over the same period, 9400km of high-speed railway have been commissioned, with a

further 8300km under construction. The outcome speaks for itself (Tests to, 2009).

Within the time horizon of addressing the challenges of South Africa’s passenger rail

technology, it does not seem worthwhile to do more than maintain a low-level awareness

of maglev technology. The topic is therefore not addressed further in this report.

4.5.5 Bus rapid transit

Comparison of BRT and Light Rail seems to deliver close outcomes. This is no surprise,

because they use similar axle loads—indeed both modes reputedly make little or no

imposition on existing substructures—and their vehicles have comparable capacity. In

practice, implementation of either mode involves substantial disruption and

reconstruction. The debate thus tends to reduce to qualitative aspects such as:

Quality: The goal of BRT systems is to approach the service quality of

a rail commuter system, while still enjoying the cost savings of bus

commuter system.

Headway: Both modes combine or couple (see §4.2.1.2) vehicles to

reduce average headway, and to increase capacity.

Perceived image and ability to influence property values positively:

Rail is a more effective catalyst for commercial and residential growth

than bus in this regard.

Capacity potential: Even bi-articulated buses at 270 passengers still

trail light rail vehicle capacity by around 100 passengers.

Land take: On open routes, busways are wider than light rail reserves;

in confined areas, bus swept area is greater than light rail.

Environmental impact: Using current technology, a diesel-powered

BRT solution is less environmentally friendly than an electrically-

powered light rail system of the same capacity.

Energy source and -efficiency: Partial or complete electrification of

BRT attracts the same cost penalty as light rail. The use of ultra

- 85 -

capacitors, to avoid electrification between stations, could apply to

both.

Priority over other road users: Both are driven on sight, and require

authorities to make the same choices to resolve contention with other

road users.

Convenience: Both can offer low floor designs or level entry.

Fare collection: BRT systems, particularly in South America, enforce

proof of payment. Light rail might take a leaf out of their book.

Regarding capacity, BRT on a single lane trails light rail on a single track approximately

in proportion to the number of passengers per unit, to give an entry level of around 7500

passengers per direction per hour. By virtue of its two degrees of freedom of movement

(see §4.2.1.1), BRT can exploit further options, not usually provided on light rail

systems, such as passing at stations and express routes (equivalent to double track rail

with crossovers). Transmilenio BRT in Bogotá raises capacity to 40 000 passengers per

direction per hour in this way, of course with correspondingly large land take.

It thus comes as no surprise that light rail axle load is

creeping up, and that enhancements such as automated

light rail and VAL are emerging to increase competitive

distance from BRT. Automatic light rail and VAL

employ technology to raise capacity, asset utilization,

and efficiency to a higher level, which BRT is not likely

to match. In the final analysis, BRT and light rail are

feeding from the same trough. The trade-offs and

decisions appear to be situation-specific. Applying the

systems approach, it could well be institutional arrangements rather than technology that

drives selection one way or the other.

4.5.6 Application potential

Although steel-wheel-on-steel-rail passenger technology has distinct competitive

advantages in specific market spaces, alternative guided surface transport technologies

have advanced to the stage where they can offer attractive, competitive solutions in

settings where rail does not fully exploit its genetic technologies. Authorities and other

stakeholders should therefore not ignore such alternative technologies. This study will

address their application prospects: If appropriate, it will suggest considerations that

should inform policy formulation for South Africa that will allow migration to the most

appropriate technologies for each application.

One should look carefully at cities such as Dubai, that apply a wide range of guided

surface transport solutions (metro, light rail, and monorail), presumably because they

have the strategic freedom to do so. Of course, alternative systems may appear attractive

at entry-level traffic volumes, but planners need to consider growth prospects as well.

4.6 Peripheral rail applications

Having explored the drivers of railway competitiveness and sustainability, it is now

opportune to lay to rest a few misperceptions about rail’s potential contribution to

society. Some stakeholders imagine that there is scope for light, road-based, vehicles to

provide passenger service on light density lines. They have floated examples such as rail

- 86 -

buses, and mini-buses, on flanged steel wheels. Three fatal flaws in the reasoning are

immediately evident:

Road vehicle axle load is low, so such vehicles do not exploit the

potential of rail’s Bearing genetic technology.

Speed is low, so such vehicles do not exploit the potential of rail’s

Guiding genetic technology.

Road vehicles are not sufficiently strong to be coupled into trains, so

such vehicles cannot exploit the potential of rail’s Coupling genetic

technology.

Road-based vehicles thus have the handicap of a single degree of freedom of movement,

without being able to offset it by leveraging any of rail’s genetic technologies. Light,

slow, single rail vehicles do not address contemporary commuter expectations. A few

single trams have survived in the former USSR and its satellites: The Consultant has

observed forlorn examples in Khabarovsk, Prague, and Vladivostok, which contribute

little to the transport task in socio-economic conditions that have rapidly developed a

preference for private cars.

The further obstacle of homologating such vehicles with rail safety requirements, now

commonplace in many countries, put the final nail in the coffin of peripheral rail

applications.

4.7 The African Union recommendations

This study recognizes, and is entirely consistent with, the Draft Recommendations

adopted by the Johannesburg Professional Conference of the African Union on 21

November 2007 (African Union, 2008). In particular, Recommendations 1 and 4, quoted

below, relate to the terms of reference of this study63

.

―1 That Member States carry out significant technical improvements

on existing metric tracks, in order to enhance their technical operating

performances;

4 For new railway lines, encourage the construction of tracks with

standard gauges, in order to bring African railway transport in line with

the development perspective.‖

The recommendations reflect the reality that standard gauge track offers significant

advantages over narrow gauge track. The challenge for South Africa, and the rest of sub-

Saharan Africa, is to find a way of implementing the recommendations, to leverage rail’s

strengths, at affordable cost.

Evidently, it is unaffordable and impractical to implement an across-the-board gauge

conversion in a short time: This study therefore, among other, explores ways of

migrating from the present track gauges to standard gauge, within the bounds of

affordability and practicality.

63 The six other draft recommendations are sound, but do not relate specifically to passenger rail

technology.

- 87 -

4.8 Relations between technology and funding

As passenger rail technology develops apace, relations among technology suppliers and

technology purchasers are acquiring a distinct character. Authorities may be wary of

purchasing high technology equipment, because they are averse to the risks associated

with maintaining it. System integrators may be equally averse to selling the same

equipment to operators who may not be able to maintain it properly, and getting their

reputation sullied in the process. Arrangements such as full maintenance leases can work

around these questions, but investors who fund them are reluctant to commit to

equipment that has limited alternative application: A 3kV dc narrow gauge train incurs

more risk than a 25kV ac standard gauge train, because the former cannot be readily

redeployed elsewhere if a relationship fails, whereas the latter can. One can expand this

elementary concept to include construction, operations, maintenance, and ultimately a

complete turnkey package.

Underlying such arrangements is an implicit relation between funding and railway

technology. It requires agreement on a performance specification and the risk or reward

of under- or over performing. Whatever the modalities, it requires willing participation

by all parties. Institutional arrangements can promote or impede particular solution

outcomes. The systems approach is a competent indicator of outcomes. Assuming that

mechanistic system adaptation will be history, leaves organismic- and socio-cultural

adaptation. Organismic adaptation is rule or regulation driven, and the outcome is

inevitably contained in that regulation: It may take long to get to the equifinal outcome,

and may even lead to a stalemate. Socio-cultural adaptation can be convoluted, but it can

involve all stakeholders to make positive progress to a meaningful outcome. As South

Africa goes about realizing its passenger rail technology aspirations, it will need to

pragmatically harness the power of appropriate systemic adaptation.

5 Applying the framework to South Africa

5.1 A general direction

5.1.1 Positioning passenger rail for sustainability

In passenger rail context, service delivery means ―meeting passengers’ needs in terms of

speed, safety, convenience,

and reliability‖ (South

African Rail, 2008/09). To

achieve such service

delivery, South Africa will

need to consider significant

incremental investment in

existing passenger rail

systems, as well as

investment in new railway

opportunities, to align its

railways with the market

spaces that contemporary

rail’s genetic technologies

strongly support. To easily

visualize how these market

spaces relate to one

- 88 -

another, the diagram on the next page zooms in the genetic technologies discussed in

§4.2.1.2 on passenger rail, showing the mainstream conventional passenger rail

technology solutions from §4.3, as well as two close competitors from the alternative

guided surface transport technologies from §4.5. To the extent that passenger rail

operations need to share, or could with mutual benefit share, infrastructure used by

freight trains, such investment and repositioning would be required for freight railways

as well.

The high quality mass mobility to which South Africa aspires, and the shift from

road to rail that will help drive it, will only be achieved by positioning railways in

the market spaces that they naturally dominate.

5.1.2 A prognosis on Transnet Freight Rail

It is axiomatic that Transnet should be considered a foundation stakeholder in

repositioning long distance passenger rail technology in South Africa. Although it is no

longer in the passenger rail business, its rail infrastructure and access thereto, will

inextricably be part of intercity- and regional passenger service delivery in the short and

medium term.

Because the National Transport Master Plan (NATMAP) needs to estimate the potential

contribution of rail to the aggregate national transport task to 2050, it requires a fair

estimate of how the national rail network and its traffic will develop over the intervening

period. This study develops an approach with which to address the contribution of

passenger rail technology. However, it cannot lose sight of the cross impact of freight

rail technology. Although outside its scope, this study therefore takes the following high-

level view on the state of freight railways, and then indicates where caution is required

with respect to investing in new- or upgraded passenger rail technology.

Transnet Freight Rail operates a narrow gauge (1067mm) network. Narrow gauge state-

of-the-art supports neither best practice heavy axle load, nor industry leading high-speed.

From §4.2.1.2, it is therefore evident that trains on TFR infrastructure are excluded from

the High-speed Intercity and Heavy Intermodal (double stack container) market spaces.

TFR does operate two routes in the Heavy Haul market space. However, noting the space

limitations on narrow gauge traction motors and its comparatively low axle load, it must

pay over the odds for locomotives and wagons. TFR is thus not strongly positioned to

exploit the three line-haul market spaces that underpin the global railway renaissance. Its

low domestic market share, and coal and iron-ore exports that are lagging global

competitors, suggests that it faces an insecure future.

TFR’s ability to collaborate on future long distance passenger rail technology

interventions rests on fragile freight rail positioning. Its ability to relate

meaningfully to passenger rail plans should be considered with circumspection.

5.1.3 The basic approach

From the Status Quo analysis (§2), and the Passenger Rail Technology Framework (§4),

it is evident that, viewed from a technology perspective, passenger railways in South

Africa have fallen behind contemporary practice. Essentially, the country has had only

one urban, and one long distance, passenger rail solution since inception of its passenger

railways. By contrast, a wide range of attractive passenger rail solutions, which embody

- 89 -

competitive technologies, is currently available virtually off-the-shelf in the global

market.

Recognizing that the life cycles of many rolling assets have expired, and that the

shortcomings of narrow track gauge have been exposed, it is now opportune to break the

old mould and migrate to a new dispensation. Note nevertheless that, with due care,

some infrastructure can be made to last longer, particularly when other built environment

has become established around a railway. For example, it is usually difficult, or

expensive, to augment or to re-route railway infrastructure in cities.

The general approach should thus be to renew or upgrade those assets that can

enhance competitiveness and sustainability, and to recycle as far as practicable,

those that are associated with valuable rights-of-way.

5.2 Migration paths toward contemporary technology solutions

5.2.1 Taking a view on interoperability

5.2.1.1 Learning from the systems approach

South Africa’s passenger railway systems have been almost completely closed for many

years: The essential technologies of the bulk of the fleet, which date from the early

1900s, are the predictable outcome of mechanistic adaptation. Recall from §2.1.5 that

while interoperability, to local standards, over the whole passenger fleet has been

rigorously maintained, one crucial, unintended, consequence is that both urban- and

long-distance passenger rolling stock fleets are now way off contemporary best practice.

Instead of being able, routinely to acquire attractive passenger rail technology solutions

in the global market, South Africa’s passenger railways have become technological

stragglers64

outside the global railway renaissance.

It is unrealistic to imagine changing South Africa’s entire passenger rail system in

a single intervention. The pragmatic alternative is to do so piecemeal, as funds

and other constraints allow. There is a need to open interaction among railway

systems and their environment, to elevate and to enlarge the system, to move

from mechanistic- to organismic- and to socio-cultural adaptation. If pragmatic,

piecemeal adaptation is the way to go, it is appropriate now to examine the

ramifications of interoperability. Piecemeal adaptation rests on setting aside

interoperability requirements in certain situations. If this requirement is not

entertained, no meaningful renewal and upgrading will be possible.

5.2.1.2 Interchanging and interoperating

When passengers interchange at designated locations, they change on foot among urban-

and long distance transport modes, such as private car, taxi, bus, bus rapid transit, light

rail, heavy rail, regional rail, intercity rail, and even air. They understand that

interoperation between different modes is out of the question, and therefore interchange

64 To be fair, one should recognize that the Blue Train and the New Generation commuter trains did

introduce advanced technologies. Unfortunately, they could not muster the requisite critical mass to sustain

ongoing change.

- 90 -

willingly, even on foot. Where necessary, of course, provision is made for the mobility-

impaired.

When trains interoperate, passengers remain in the train from origin to destination.

While interoperation is undoubtedly more convenient than interchange, railway

stakeholders should weigh the value of that convenience, against the opportunity cost of

technological stagnation. Railways in South Africa, both freight and passenger, have

become ensnared in a position from which it is difficult to acquire rolling stock with

which to respond to market opportunities in real time. The opportunity cost of a national

transport service provider failing to support economic activity on demand must be

detrimental to all.

Sacrificing interoperating by train, for interchanging on

foot as shown at right, allows each transport mode to

develop technologically at its own pace. This perspective

applies equally to the various passenger rail applications,

such as urban rail, regional rail, high-speed intercity, and

ultra high-speed intercity. Separating them into sub-

systems or sub-networks allows the respective systemic

technologies to advance by smaller, more virile building

blocks.

It is noteworthy that countries with a progressive attitude to rail-based mass mobility no

longer regard interoperability within urban rail systems, and between urban rail systems

and regional- and national rail systems, as a non-negotiable requirement. Indeed,

adopting a pragmatic stance on interchangeability and interoperability has allowed them

to lead or follow closely the development trajectory of passenger rail technology in the

global railway renaissance.

Stakeholders now need to grant passenger rail in South Africa sufficient space to

open its systems to the most appropriate rail technology for each market space,

and allow the industry to develop from there and to flourish.

5.2.1.3 Challenging existing precepts

Relentless change has become an integral part of the global railway renaissance.

Competing system integrators increasingly differentiate their offerings, to exploit ever

rising user expectations (Van der Meulen & Möller, 2006). The range of passenger rail

solutions on offer has consequently increased dramatically in recent years. For steel-

wheel-on-steel rail applications, traditional long distance services have mutated into

regional-, high-speed-, and ultra high-speed services; suburban heavy rail services have

mutated into metro- and regional- services; and tram services have mutated into light

rail-, tram-train-, and light metro services. Other than standard gauge track and 25kV ac

overhead electrification, each mutation is neither interoperable with any other, nor

required to be interoperable. Then come the rubber-tyred variants …

Even within the standard gauge/25kV ac ideal, interoperability still challenges railway

operators on many counts—narrow- or wide bodies, control systems specified for long-

or short trains; high-, low, or zero platform heights; heavy- or light axle load, minimum

curve radius, maximum speed, installed power, and many more. However, pragmatic,

progressive transport authorities have learned to deploy each mutation to extract the

- 91 -

competitive advantage built in by the system integrator. Within this milieu,

interoperability between freight- and passenger trains, on shared infrastructure, is a

particularly unwelcome imposition on both operators. It can only be made workable by a

cooperative, mature relation among the parties.

In South Africa, where rail passenger transport is perceived to fit poorly with stakeholder

expectations, it is necessary to introduce new technologies to move with the times. In so

doing, one must challenge and set aside pre-existing one-size-fits-all interoperability

precepts. The most compelling reason to do so is that the existing set of interoperability

precepts will not be superseded by another set, but by several sets, one for each

application. If that seems like a high barrier to entry into contemporary passenger rail

solutions, consider the opportunity cost of foregoing the opportunity to change by

insisting on interoperability as a first requirement. It will simply entrench the legacy

from the past, and snuff out rail’s potential contribution to the nation’s mass passenger

transport task.

Interoperability therefore needs to be negotiable. Not without limits, but diligently,

recognizing that system integrators also have a strong interest in limiting the

extent of product diversity. Interoperability should therefore be considered case-

by-case, with a view to implementing the best solutions that contemporary rail

can offer.

5.2.2 Matching subsystems

5.2.2.1 Urban infrastructure

South Africa’s existing urban rail infrastructure, in particular its valuable right of way, is

entangled in the built environment and the communities it serves. The departure point for

future development should therefore be to leave well alone as far as possible, to

minimize the cost of redevelopment, and to leverage the maximum benefit from new

investment.

To the extent that contemporary metro trains can substantially improve speed, safety,

convenience, reliability, comfort, and capacity, over their intended route distances, there

is every reason to redevelop existing infrastructure rather than contemplate new. In this

regard, South African cities are no different from their counterparts around the world.

While examples of abandoned mainline railways do exist, abandoned urban railways are

rare—cities grow more and more attached to them.

Some minor improvements should be implemented, primarily to raise base speed above

30km/h on special trackwork such as crossovers, diamond crossings, and slips. Some are

placed to facilitate freight operations, and others are restricted for interoperability with

steam locomotives65

. A recommendation is made in this regard (see §6.5).

5.2.2.2 Intercity and regional infrastructure

South Africa’s existing long-distance rail infrastructure presents a much bigger challenge

than its urban rail counterpart. Lines that were built with no curve speed restrictions for

65 Steam locomotives are an anachronism that one should no longer allow or consider on urban mass

mobility routes.

- 92 -

the 90km/h passenger trains of the time, are immediately overwhelmed by curve speed

restrictions when the permissible line speed is raised to 100km/h or more.

Beyond 130km/h, standard gauge track is required in any event. Unless it is possible to

build new alignment, it will require sharing track with TFR. This may be parallel with

existing tracks, similar to Gautrain and Metrorail between Hatfield and Pretoria. Note

however that, if standard gauge track needs to follow the same curve radii as narrow

gauge track, it will be subject to similar curve speed restrictions. This will indeed be the

case for Gautrain between Pretoria and Hatfield.

5.2.2.3 Train authorization: Capacity versus speed

From §2.1.3.1 and §4.4.2.3, it is evident that there is contention between the

requirements of firstly high capacity and high-speed passenger train authorization

systems, and secondly between freight- and mainline passenger train authorization

systems. The first category would ideally be addressed by segmenting passenger services

such that metro operations run on dedicated infrastructure. All other trains would then

default into the second category66

. A recommendation is made in this regard (see §6.3.4).

The second case would represent mainlines to be re-gauged or dual-gauged to standard

gauge, to support higher speed passenger trains. They will either be impeded by existing

signalling systems, or technology such as additional signal aspects, or communication

based train control, would need to be provided to mitigate the impediment

Communication-based train control could be of value to South Africa, particularly on

intercity and regional routes, where there would likely be sharing of infrastructure,

between passenger trains running at higher speeds than at present, and freight trains. The

United States systems (referred to in § 4.4.7.5) for intermixing freight and passenger

trains in relatively light density traffic could be useful for similar mixed working in

South Africa. They originated in a comparable environment having a mixed bag of

legacy systems, over which a system was laid to enforce movement- and speed

authorities.

It is not possible to realize the full performance potential of contemporary trains

on existing rail networks—urban, regional, and intercity. In particular, train speed

and braking performance need to be matched by the signalling system, so that

headway can be minimized. This requires, as a minimum, matched upgrading of

rolling stock and signalling, possibly on a route-by-route basis.

5.2.3 Sourcing passenger rail technology

5.2.3.1 The influence of the railway renaissance and globalization

The last large-series (5M generation) suburban coaches67

purchased new in South Africa,

in the mid-1980s, were built to design concepts that originated in the 1920s. Mainline

coaches have a similar heritage. Between then and now, passenger rail technology has

developed and diversified, to provide competitive solutions in the market spaces

66 Note that there is potentially a third case, namely ultra high-speed trains on dedicated infrastructure. The

requisite matching is implicit in the dedication.

67 This excludes the 6M, 7M, 8M, and 9M generations, which laid the foundation for further series builds,

which did not materialize.

- 93 -

described in §4.3. The market and the industry from which South Africa must source

new passenger rail equipment and services to join the contemporary passenger rail

mainstream has changed beyond recognition. The railway renaissance and economic

globalization have fundamentally reshaped the railway supply industry. The remainder of

§5.2.3 examines issues regarding migrating into that mainstream.

In this context, technology subsumes the sum total of what makes a railway work over its

intended life cycle. It includes intellectual property, from system conception down to the

smallest component or operation, as well as designs, hardware and software, construction

and manufacturing, operations and maintenance, and their integration—everything that

constitutes a turnkey contract to conceive, plan, build, and run a railway68

.

Global centres of excellence, supported by intense, industry-funded, research and

development, have emerged to supply high-value-added specialist components and

subsystems, such as bogies, power electronics, signalling, and many more, into the

global market. The process has transferred competitive advantage from purchasers to

system integrators. This means that a high level of sub-systems- and possibly even

systems design will need to be imported. South Africa needs to recognize the challenges,

and opportunities, of migrating to contemporary passenger rail technology that is aligned

with robust industry-preferred or industry-standard solutions. Local participation must

inevitably look different from what it did when South Africa last implemented new

railway technology.

5.2.3.2 Global sourcing

In addition to the established suppliers and system integrators in Europe, Japan, and

North America, Asian mainland suppliers are also making their mark as global suppliers.

Korea’s Hyundai Rotem has already established a global business

focused on high-speed and urban rail technology, and has successfully

entered markets in Europe and the United States.

China is still a net recipient in large-scale technology transfer deals

with system integrators in developed countries. However, it has also

started supplying equipment and services into the global market, and

is building a reputation for low technology items such as coaches and

wagons in developing markets.

India is accelerating its railway development. It is setting up

technology transfer arrangements, and facilities for rolling stock

manufacture. It is also pursuing export markets with indigenous

technology. The width of its vehicle profile is the same as that in

North America, and it has adopted AAR practices for its heavy freight

corridors.

Russia builds railways to its own standards, but aspires to use

[unspecified] international standards (Lukov, 2009). It still has a huge

backlog of domestic requirements, so it is likely to be a net importer

68 Of course, existing railway operators may be interested in only a subset of this scope to, say, expand

capacity or renew assets, but they are mentioned here for completeness.

- 94 -

from the global market for some years. However, it is already active

in railway construction outside Russia. The width of its vehicle profile

is the same as that in North America.

By planning diligently, South Africa could position itself to acquire railway equipment

from competitive global sources.

5.2.3.3 Possible stumbling blocks

Being owned by TFR, mainline railways in South Africa are freight-oriented, and likely

to remain so for some while. However, many of TFR’s existing freight operations are at

best marginally competitive against road. From §4.2 it is evident that heavy axle load

characterizes competitive freight railways: One should therefore expect wagon axle load

to increase as freight rail fights back. If some suitable shared routes were changed to

standard gauge, or dual-gauged, useful line capacity utilization synergy could develop

between freight traffic and high-speed passenger traffic. However, it is likely to be a

North-American oriented axle-load-driven outcome rather than a European-oriented

speed-driven outcome.

Competitive freight wagons typically use three-piece bogies with no primary suspension,

and maintenance standards on freight-oriented standard gauge railways may be

somewhat lower than those on passenger-oriented railways, though not unsafe. European

freight wagons use primary suspension on good track, but axle load is comparatively low

and competitiveness therefore wanting. While high-speed rolling stock tends to originate

in Europe69

, competitive freight rail technology originates in the United States.

While United States’ rolling stock has seen minimal

service in Europe (because it is too heavy and too bulky),

some European rolling stock or technology has famously

failed to satisfy expectations on track shared with freight

trains in the United States. The following examples

illustrate:

1961 Krauss Maffei ML-4000

locomotives (German)

1973 ANF Turbotrains (French),

1977 CC21000-series monomotor-bogie locomotives (French), and

1979 Superliner bogies (German)

To give balance, other designs have actually worked well, namely:

1978-1988 Amtrak AEM-7 locomotives (Swedish),

1988 Talgo pendular tilting train (Spanish), and

2002-2009 New Jersey Transit ALP-46 locomotives (German)

69 Other than Taiwan, Japanese technology has not made much headway in high-speed railways outside

Japan

- 95 -

The point is raised here, because South Africa’s pursuit of passenger trains poses it an

unusual track quality challenge. Saudi Arabia is at present building new lines for a mix

of heavy freight and fast passenger trains, and will be the first to experience the outcome.

The global railway industry is watching with interest. South Africa should pay particular

attention.

5.2.3.4 South Africa’s procurement leverage

South Africa is a small player in the global rail market. In a recent study (Roland Berger,

2008), Africa and the Middle East combined contributed only some 4½% of total market

potential. This grouping included substantial spending by Saudi Arabia and the United

Arab Emirates, leaving the South African share of the global market probably around

1%. For perspective, Europe leads the global market potential with 29%: Passenger

operations dominate that market, so it is unsurprising that Europe’s purchasing power

exerts strong influence on global passenger rail technology. This is also reflected in its

rail supplier research spend of Euros 1 billion per year (UNIFE, undated). For

perspective, the latter spend is in the league of TFR’s annual revenue (Transnet, 2008).

Then comes spending on railway research in China, India, Japan, North America, and

Russia, to mention the heavyweights.

As South Africa implements its passenger rail vision, it may initially need or want to

enter particular market spaces with small fleet quantities. It would have more leverage if

it could piggyback on orders by other railways (not an unusual occurrence nowadays), or

even acquire second hand rolling stock, particularly trailing stock. Other high-technology

equipment—signalling, automatic fare collection, and so on, has a relatively short half-

life—which is good from the perspective of keeping up to date, but requires careful

management to actually do so.

South Africa has no alternative but to consider it a rail technology taker. It needs

to position itself in a workable systemic relation with potential suppliers, both

global and local. In organismic system terms, one should recognize that well-

intended requirements might bring unintended consequences. In recent years

South Africa has found itself in an intractable position regarding rolling stock

acquisition as requirements have contracted the solution space. Elevating the

relationship to socio-cultural, to admit all stakeholder perspectives, could restore

fluidity.

5.2.3.5 Maximizing life-cycle value

Before setting course on a new passenger rail technology dispensation, it will be prudent

to revisit South Africa’s local participation mix, to ensure that local content perspectives

support rather than impede implementation. The following drivers are pertinent:

Contemporary aluminium and stainless steel bodies, which require

investment in sophisticated facilities, have become the domain of

specialist suppliers. The extent of local manufacture would depend on

fleet commitments and production volumes. As systems integrators

segment products to target specific market niches, sales of a particular

item in a specific market tend to decrease.

Manufacture of railway equipment has become a specialized business

in a competitive global market. High technology in small packages,

- 96 -

for example propulsion- and signalling systems, has become

concentrated in global centres of excellence. Only technologically

advanced countries manufacture it, the rest import it.

Contemporary trains are maintained over their entire life cycle in the

same depot that performs running maintenance70

. Some components

may require a mid-life refurbishment, which is also possible with

normal equipment at a running depot, with assistance from specialized

subcontractors.

Contemporary equipment is low maintenance, e.g. aluminium or

stainless steel car bodies do not need periodic heavy repair. This

therefore also eliminates the need for heavy repair facilities.

Maintenance of high technology equipment requires highly skilled

maintainers: There is a global trend to outsource this function to

original equipment manufacturers or specialist maintainers.

In the foregoing milieu, where even completely assembled EMU cars

are delivered by air on occasion, the maximum local manufacture in a

developing country might be modest assembly of large components

such as body sub-assemblies. Even then, local manufacture would

face aggressive competition from Asian builders.

The local content portion during project development is likely to

comprise largely infrastructure design, -construction, or –recon-

struction, and assembly of trains. One may consider the Gautrain

model a prototype, and the extent of local vehicle assembly or

building will depend on the fleet size in prospect.

The following bullets explain how local participants could leverage the foregoing

drivers:

Greenfields projects run at around 60-80% infrastructure construction

cost and 20-40% rolling stock and signalling cost. Infrastructure spend

is by nature largely local, so the lion’s share should remain accessible

to local participation. The ratios for brownfields projects would

depend on the scope.

Maintenance would likely represent a major element of local

participation, and if properly structured, could stimulate emergence of

competitive maintenance suppliers.

There could thus be a shift in emphasis from rolling stock

manufacturing to construction and services, such as operations,

maintenance, information technology, legal services, property

management, and so on.

Regional- and urban rail compete with modes that rely largely on

imported equipment—buses, BRT, cars, and taxis. The latter modes

70 Some specialized maintenance functions may be outsourced to off-site contractors on a unit exchange

basis.

- 97 -

enjoy quick response to new technologies, and hold relatively low risk

to suppliers. Local content of railway rolling stock is promoted in

many countries, but it should not impose high risk to suppliers.

If passenger rail were positioned to shoulder its rightful share of the

South African transport task, the size of the railway industry, both in

market presence and in value added, should grow significantly larger

than at present. While redistributing the mix might require some

incumbents to adapt, an expanding rail equipment market should take

such change on board without undue disruption, and create higher

aggregate value for all participants.

Stakeholders should consider the passenger rail system over its whole life cycle, to

identify all opportunities to add value through local participation.

Life-cycle-spend is the other side of life-cycle-cost. The need to manage

expenditure associated with owning an asset over its life cycle is widely

understood. However, in the context of migrating to a new passenger rail

technology dispensation, it makes sense to look at life cycle spend as well. Cash

flows to recipients of life cycle spend are what really count when assessing total

impact.

5.2.4 Changing track gauge from narrow to standard

5.2.4.1 Techniques

This section addresses the scenario that South Africa does change some, or all, of its

track gauge. Change would realistically take place over several years, introducing the

possibility of break of gauge within South Africa. The Railway Gauge Working Group

(National Transport, 2009a) addressed the issue from a general perspective. What

follows addresses some passenger-specific aspects of changing track gauge

opportunistically and piecemeal.

No change is the natural do nothing option. Passengers would interchange between one

train and another, in the same way that they interchange between trains and other

transport modes. This option will probably be unavoidable as gauge change rolls out, or

as new routes are introduced. It could even be temporary at any given location.

Dual-gauge track requires complex trackwork, and even more challenging on electrified

lines, because contact wire stagger cannot reference the centerlines of both tracks. Dual

gauge occurs mainly in Australia, on track worked by diesel locomotives, so

electrification is a non-issue there. It is generally not used over long distances, because

of its complexity—the longest known route is the 120km from Northam to Perth in

Western Australia. The reference distance from track to platform face for two different

vehicle profiles is also not a trivial issue—see §5.2.4.2.

Gauge-adjustable wheelsets have found favour for passenger train applications. They

can easily co-exist with electrification, because they support normal contact wire stagger.

They are heavier than fixed-gauge bogies by about a tonne, and more expensive too. The

following examples could be of interest to South Africa:

- 98 -

The Talgo system from Spain, which changes gauge automatically at

low speed, is particularly attractive: It can be built with a single

wheelset configuration, which is thus less complex than a gauge-

changing bogie, which is nevertheless also possible. It is generally

used on electrified track, although diesel versions also exist. An

example is shown in §4.4.5.5.

Japan has developed an EMU Gauge Change Train to interoperate

between 1067mm and 1435mm track gauges—the same situation as

South Africa will likely need to address. Using Talgo technology, it is

the only design possibly close to commercial availability. After

completion of testing in Japan and at Pueblo in the US, the

commercial outcome is at present not yet evident.

System integrator CAF, also from Spain, envisions universal trains for

Europe, for unrestricted

interoperability among 1668mm

(Iberian), 1520mm (CIS countries),

and 1435mm (standard) track gauges;

as well as 25kV 50Hz ac, 15kV

16⅔Hz ac, 3kV dc, and 1,5kV dc

traction power supply. The

photograph shows its prototype.

Re-gauge-, or build track to standard gauge is the most desirable option. In South

Africa, it would require that a fleet of standard gauge rolling stock be made available up

front, as with Gautrain.

Techniques for dealing with either progressive or instantaneous migration to

standard gauge are available. There is no reason in principle why South Africa

should not contemplate changing track gauge where it offers compelling

advantages. The cost and logistics of doing so are matters for careful

consideration.

5.2.4.2 Implementation

Implementing track gauge change can range from

straightforward to complex, depending on the initial

situation and ultimate objective.

Early railways fixed their rails to timber sleepers by

means of spikes. The gauge unification of 18 000

kilometers of track in the southern United States, from 5

feet to 4 feet 9 inches71

, was accomplished over two days

in 1886 (The days, undated). The gauge was narrowed,

so existing sleepers could be retained: New inner spikes

were pre-placed, and the outer spikes simply repositioned

71 The 4 feet 9 inches gauge was a consensus value, but it was of course not standard gauge. The final

reduction to 4 feet 8½ inches (1435mm) was accomplished some years later in the course of normal track

maintenance, after the value of interoperability with the northern states had been appreciated.

- 99 -

as only one rail was moved over the two days. The principle is illustrated at right above.

Rolling stock wheelset gauge was both pre-changed and changed concurrently.

Such gauge changing still takes place—see the illustration at right, which shows track

being converted from 914mm gauge to standard gauge in Peru in 2008. End-to-end

conversion is imminently feasible when standard gauge

invades narrow gauge territory, particularly if

electrification and signalling are not at issue.

The ability to change track gauge quickly depends on the

amount of gauge difference, and the length and type of

sleepers. If the gauge must be widened, as would be the

case in South Africa, the United States example would

not work, because short sleepers would need to be replaced by long ones. Contemporary

concrete sleepers have recesses that locate the rail, and are thus manufactured for a

particular track gauge. It is also unlikely that existing rolling stock could be quickly

adapted from narrow gauge to standard gauge. The 368mm difference would require

completely new bogies on coaches and locomotives72

, which would likely be

prohibitively expensive.

In the 1880s, the United States gauge unification would not have involved much

signalling or special trackwork, and what was involved was simply screwed or spiked

onto timber sleepers. With some foresight, it could well have been on the side where the

rail was not moved. Nowadays, signalling track circuits, and points machines, would also

be involved.

Vehicle profile was also not an issue then, because low-level platforms were (and still

are) used. The slight offset due to moving one rail only could not cause difficulty with

platform gaps.

The amount by which the South African vehicle profile exceeds the track gauge is

991.5mm on each side73

. For standard gauge vehicles, this can range from 857.5mm (e.g.

UIC body width) to 907.5mm (e.g. AAR, as well as Indian and Russian, body widths).

Narrow gauge vehicle bodies thus project more outside the track than would standard

gauge vehicles. If track gauge were changed, the track would need to be slewed at

platforms to maintain platform gaps. This could raise issues regarding distances between

adjacent tracks.

Dual-gauging eliminates most of the issues raised above. Suitable sleepers, concrete,

steel, or wood, with provision for two (or more) track gauges, may be pre-placed in

preparation for laying the third rail quickly thereafter. However, the abovementioned

platform gap issue would remain.

Motive power can be a confounding issue. Gauge change is comparatively easy with

diesel traction, because only the track is involved. However, it is comparatively difficult

72 Coaches, locomotives, and motor coaches use single-piece bogie frames, which are not easily adaptable

to a large track gauge increase.

73 Profile width 3050mm minus track gauge 1067mm = 1983 mm, or 991.5mm per side.

- 100 -

with electric traction, particularly if a railway wishes to follow the sensible path of

installing 25kV ac electrification at the same time as standardizing track gauge.

Thorough planning and preparation is a critical element of changing track gauge.

For a passenger railway, it would be valuable to ask passengers’ indulgence to

interchange on foot during a gauge change, and to keep standard gauge

infrastructure and operations separate and non-interoperable as far as possible.

5.2.4.3 Recycling infrastructure

When planning to implement the various mainstream trains described in §4.3,

infrastructure can represent a major component of the cost of providing rail service,

particularly for higher speed, standard track gauge, and low-density traffic. How does

one obtain appropriate infrastructure? A useful guide is that, for passenger rail to become

sustainable, it will need to leverage rail’s genetic technologies. One should therefore

expect passenger trains to become faster and heavier74

. The following bullets start with

what exists right now, and lists the further rational options to leverage existing

infrastructure before contemplating new infrastructure.

Recycle track—new trains run on existing track*.

Recycle formation—new trains run on new track* on existing

formation.

Recycle right-of-way—new trains run on new track on new formation

on existing right of way*. This option admits possible change in

horizontal- and vertical alignment. Note that it might require

acquisition of additional land, to increase horizontal curve radius, and

to make deeper cuts and higher fills to increase vertical curve radius,

both to raise speed.

Build new infrastructure on new right-of-way. This would apply to

new routes such as ultra high-speed lines, missing links to enhance the

utility of the network, and lines to reach out to communities that need

to be included in the rail network.

In practice, a blend of all four options will probably emerge.

*New- or upgraded signaling could be required in many instances, to match the

performance of faster and heavier trains, with higher acceleration- and retardation rates,

to infrastructure attributes.

5.3 Candidate contemporary passenger rail solutions

5.3.1 Developing a short list

The following passenger rail applications, drawn from §4.3 Mainstream conventional

passenger rail technology solutions, and §4.5 Alternative guided surface transport

technologies, appear worthy of appearing on a short list for consideration in South

74They are unlikely to become longer, because South Africa’s passenger trains are already among the

longest in the world—arguably because they are inherently uncompetitive and hence increased train length

was the only way out.

- 101 -

Africa. The approach is generic, with a view to applying some of them to specific routes

and corridors in South Africa in §5.5 as requested by the client.

5.3.2 Urban solutions

5.3.2.1 Light Rail

Light Rail does not currently exist in South Africa. It is in principle competitive with bus

rapid transit, but offers environmental advantages and a permanence anchor for

surrounding development. A decision to implement BRT should not be made without

first evaluating light rail as a credible alternative.

5.3.2.2 Light Metro

Light Metro raises light rail performance into the capacity domain of existing Metrorail

operations, by segregating right of way and providing signalling. It is typically also

automated. One should consider it as a way of providing rail service to corridors that are

marginal by PRASA’s Priority B criteria (South African Rail, 2006), and may even be

viable for Priority C and Priority A in some instances.

5.3.2.3 Automated Light Metro

Automated Light Metro is a close competitor for Light Metro75

. The essential difference

is that automated light metro uses the higher and more consistent adhesion of rubber

tyres to reduce headway. Hence it can perform a given transport task with fewer

resources. The decisive test would be to compare them back to back on a specific project.

Prior experience with either could drive decisions, but South Africa has experience of

neither.

5.3.2.4 Metro

Metro, or heavy metro, should feature prominently in South Africa’s major cities and -

conurbations, i.e. those that currently have their own passenger rail infrastructure,

Durban, Gauteng, and Western Cape. A radius of 25-35km from each city centre would

include most suitable catchment areas.

These long-established routes have already supported development in their catchment

areas for many years. Their right-of-way represents valuable corridors on which to build

attractive services with contemporary high performance rolling stock and train

authorization systems. Noting that contemporary metro can raise capacity by a factor of

three or more compared to existing systems, it could accommodate considerable growth

on existing corridors, or support extension of service to wider catchment areas without

requiring additional tracks for common routes where they approach city centres, or both.

Recall from §4.3.4.6 that metro rail is the one railway application where narrow

gauge track does not impede train performance in any way. This report therefore

does not recommend that there is any compulsion to change to standard gauge,

but does recognize that standard gauge track can add value through greater

comfort, wider bodies, greater energy efficiency, and importantly, competitive

75 The Consultant recognizes that the terminology might be confusing, and hopefully the industry will

make the necessary distinctions in due course.

- 102 -

global sourcing. These factors should drive a preference for standard gauge on

new routes.

5.3.3 Mainline solutions

5.3.3.1 Regional rail

In contrast to the niche indicated for metro, South Africa’s major conurbations also

contain substantial population pockets further afield. Attractive commuter rail service to

such communities would require higher speed than metro, to give a reasonable journey

time, but probably a lower frequency.

Regional rail should ideally run on standard gauge track, and would need access to city

centres. The Gautrain solution between Hatfield and Pretoria, shoehorning a double track

standard gauge route into a reserve previously used by a double track narrow gauge

route, could be a model for similar schemes elsewhere.

Given sufficient demand and access to suitable infrastructure, regional rail could make a

significant contribution to South Africa’s mass mobility task.

5.3.3.2 High-speed intercity

From §4.3.6.1, it is evident that high-speed intercity (200km/h) is a natural development,

and ultimate stage, of good basic standard gauge infrastructure that has been routinely

upgraded over time. South Africa simply does not have such infrastructure. As

mentioned in §5.4.4 and §5.5.1.5, there may exceptionally be opportunities in portions of

the Durban-Cape Town corridor.

Standard gauge is an essential requirement for high-speed intercity. In most corridors

other than Durban-Cape Town, this would mean re-gauging existing track, and by

implication sharing it with freight traffic. This would not be a happy mix. If a new line

were to be built for passenger service, it would be sensible to exploit state-of-the-art and

build it as an ultra-high-speed line.

5.3.3.3 Ultra high speed

An ultra-high-speed rail service may one day be viable between Gauteng and Durban, as

a first application in South Africa. The Rail Gauge Working Group has considered it as a

case study (National Transport, 2009f), and found that the requisite traffic is not likely to

materialize in the next 10 or even 20 years. The Steering Committee requested that the

Consultant examine this application, and further findings are contained in §5.5.1.3.

5.4 Emerging contemporary passenger railway technology applications

5.4.1 Opportunities to join the global mainstream

Three significant passenger rail proposals have emerged in South Africa in recent times,

of which one is currently being implemented. Collectively they have shown that

revisiting established passenger rail technology precepts can lead to opportunities to join

the global mainstream. The rationale behind each of the three proposals provides

valuable insight for guiding further application of contemporary passenger rail

technology in South Africa.

- 103 -

5.4.2 Gautrain

The Gautrain Rapid Rail Link is the first project to modernize passenger railways in

South Africa. Currently under construction, it set out to exploit the attractive features of

contemporary passenger trains, and the performance advantages of standard gauge, to

attract motorists off congested roads. Its significance lies in:

Introducing contemporary passenger trains to South Africa.

Re-introducing standard gauge track to South Africa.

Giving progressive objectives a higher priority than interoperability

with legacy systems.

Exemplifying the type of integrated public transport solution that can

be had by competitive bidding against a performance specification.

Realizing a public-private partnership, to leverages the know-how of a

private sector concessionaire off the authority of a provincial

government.

Providing a transport solution that is already influencing the spatial

development pattern of Gauteng, even before it commences operation.

The Gautrain project has demonstrated that it is possible to plant contemporary

passenger rail solutions in South Africa. Given the political will to find a way

through the inevitable obstacle course, it has proved workable to package

funding and technology into a project that is set to have a profound positive

influence on many aspects of Gauteng’s economic and social fabric.

5.4.3 Moloto Rail

Moloto Rail proposes to deploy a contemporary standard gauge regional rail solution, as

described in §4.3.5. It proposes to reduce journey time for commuters in a corridor that is

currently served by a bus service that is considered less safe than it should be. Its

significance lies in:

A standard gauge solution outperforming baseline narrow gauge

solutions, including—

o Shorter journey time,

o Lower capital investment,

o Lower life-cycle cost,

Rail providing a more attractive public transport offering than road,

Good strategic positioning for future capacity growth and network

extension, and

Demonstrating that an industry-standard rail mass mobility solution

can fit easily in the South African public transport setting.

See also §5.5.1.2 for potential further development of the Moloto corridor.

- 104 -

The Moloto Rail project demonstrates that industry-preferred solutions,

developed and battle-proven in competitive markets elsewhere, can also provide

winning mass mobility solutions for South Africa. It also illustrates the advantage

of exploring solutions outside the present South African passenger rail

technology paradigm, by allowing exposure to the rich variety of competitive rail

solutions available in the global market.

5.4.4 Mthatha-Port Elizabeth High-speed Link

The Eastern Cape Province Mthatha-Port Elizabeth High-speed Link proposes to deploy

200km/h standard gauge passenger trains, by recycling moribund branch lines and

constructing new key links, to provide fast, high quality service along an east-west axis

(Van der Meulen, 2008). The proposal is based on recycling existing infrastructure in

one of the primary High Priority Intra Provincial Corridors (South African Rail, undated)

to the maximum possible extent, adding new links where necessary, and re-gauging track

for high-speed operation. Its significance lies in:

Reducing route distance of legacy infrastructure from 820km to

590km by building selected route cutoffs,

Redeveloping old branch line alignments by steepening gradients and

easing curves for passenger-only operation,

Redeveloping existing main line alignments by easing curves to

increase speed,

Re-gauging track to standard gauge,

Dual-gauging if and where necessary, and

Raising maximum speed to 200km/h, possibly with tilting trains, to

achieve 4½ hour Port Elizabeth-Mthatha journey time.

The proposal is currently under consideration by the government of Eastern Cape

Province (Kei Rail, 2009).

The proposal represents a last stand for particular moribund branch lines. Their

founding purpose has long been realized, and aggressive competitors have

marginalized them. If it proves economically viable, their right of way can be

recycled to restore them to the contemporary mass mobility milieu. If not, nature

must eventually take them back.

5.5 Renewing and upgrading passenger railway technology

5.5.1 Selected route studies

5.5.1.1 Rationale

This section applies selected mainstream conventional passenger rail technology

solutions from §4.3 to selected networks or routes in South Africa, to discuss and to

illustrate their potential application. The selection was agreed between the Steering

committee and the Consultant, to achieve a balance between situations that provide

generic insight and those that address current questions.

- 105 -

Appreciate that numerate analysis, with actual traffic statistics and real economic and

financial data is not within the scope of this study. What follows are therefore high-level

scenario-style illustrations of how one might approach contemporary rail solutions for

South Africa. More comprehensive insight would require deeper analysis.

5.5.1.2 Gauteng Regional Rail

Gauteng Province has approximately the same dimensions north-south as east-west,

namely 200km. Existing rail transport corridors cover the province fairly extensively, as

does the road mode. The dominant Strategic Public Transport Network axis is oriented

roughly north-north-east to south-south-west across the province, with subsidiary east-

west and radial axes. Road corridors are congested, and rail corridors are slow. The

current Gauteng Freeway Improvement Project should relieve congestion, and the

Gautrain will speed up rail on a small core network. However, from a province-wide

mass mobility perspective, transit in Gauteng will still not be rapid.

In common with other provinces, Metrorail 5M/10M stock underpins Gauteng regional-

and urban rail services. By comparison with contemporary global practice, it offers less

than metro capacity on short hauls, and is slower than regional rail on long hauls.

Shosholoza Meyl is relevant to the extent that people in Gauteng need to interchange

with it for destinations outside Gauteng, and vice versa.

By integrating the passenger rail technology framework in §4, and its application to

South Africa in §5, it is possible to synthesize the following scenario around the Moloto

Rail project, which offers the prospect of anchoring rapid rail mass transit in Gauteng.

The following are key elements (see map above):

- 106 -

From the north, extend standard gauge Moloto Rail to establish a

regional rail spine,

From Koedoespoort westwards to Hercules; interchange with

Metrorail, and with light rail on recycled right of way to

Hartebeespoort Dam,

From Hercules southwards via Belle Ombre to Pretoria; interchange

with Gautrain, Metrorail, and Shosholoza Meyl,

From Pretoria southwards parallel with PRASA to Olifantsfontein;

interchange with Metrorail,

From Olifantsfontein through Tembisa to Modderfontein, interchange

with Gautrain,

From Modderfontein along N3, enter Johannesburg via Bezuidenhout

Valley to Johannesburg/Park Station; interchange with Gautrain,

Metrorail, and Shosholoza Meyl,

Exit Johannesburg/Park Station southwards through Crown Mines and

follow to N1 to Midannandale, picking up Midway, interchange with

Midway-Oberholzer,

From Midannandale southwards parallel with existing line to

Sebokeng; interchange with Houtheuwel-Potchefstroom-Klerksdorp,

From Sebokeng to the Vaal Triangle area; terminal loop to pick up all

potential stops, and simultaneously turn trains for the return journey;

interchange with Metrorail.

Realizing the scenario would contribute the following benefits:

Provide an opportunity to tap into the Priority A corridors in southern

Gauteng (South African Rail, 2006).

Provide a backbone service round which to integrate all existing

Metrorail services, and to segment them if and when necessary to roll

out new technology in manageable chunks.

Provide a backbone service round which to integrate future shorter

distance rail services, metro, light metro, and light rail.

Minimize environmental impact and/or construction cost by running,

where possible, parallel with existing rail routes, parallel to freeways,

or through relatively underdeveloped terrain.

Enhance viability of Moloto Rail, by extending utilization of rolling

stock that might otherwise have been underutilized between morning

and evening peaks.

Simplify interchange at the northern terminus of Gautrain. Gauteng

Regional Rail would need a linear route through Pretoria: It could

therefore be sensible to extend Gautrain from Hatfield to

- 107 -

Koedoespoort, rather than link Moloto Rail with Gautrain at

Hatfield76

.

Station Cumulative

Distance,

km

Link Time,

minutes

Dwell Time,

minutes

Schedule

Time,

minutes

Interchanges

Siyabuswa 0 0 0 0

Intermediate 49 26 1 27

Mamelodi 98 26 1 27

Koedoespoort 110 7 1 8 Metrorail Greenview

Hercules 122 6 1 7 Metrorail Hammanskraal,

Mabopane, Rustenburg; Light Rail

Hartebeespoort Dam

Pretoria 127 3 1 4 Gautrain Hatfield, Park; Metrorail

Germiston, Saulsville

Olifantsfontein 152 14 1 15 Metrorail Germiston, Pretoria

Tembisa 156 2 1 3

Modderfontein 169 7 1 8 Gautrain OR Tambo, Sandton

Johannesburg 191 12 1 13 Gautrain Pretoria; Metrorail East

Rand, Soweto, West Rand;

Shosholoza Meyl all directions

Nasrec 201 5 1 6

Kliptown 212 6 1 7 Metrorail Oberholzer

Midannandale 222 5 1 6

Sebokeng 249 15 1 16 Potentially to Klerksdorp

Vaal Triangle 260 6 0 6 Metrorail Germiston

Average

Distance, km

20

Average

Running Speed,

112

Cumulative

Time, minutes

140 13 153

Kick-start standard gauge: Establish a critical-mass network, which

could anchor rail development, and leverage existing infrastructure.

Invert the status quo, in which narrow gauge dominates, to standard

gauge dominates.

Allow metro naturally to contribute high-capacity solutions—few

destinations are further away from the standard gauge regional

backbone than the ideal 25-35km.

Revitalize a 35km portion of the disused Hercules-Magaliesburg

branch line, from Hercules Station77

to the Hartebeespoort Dam

76 Gautrain is built to the small United Kingdom vehicle profile, whereas Moloto Rail, the Gauteng

Regional Rail, and all other future projects, should be built to one of the larger international profiles

discussed in this report.

77 Hercules Station is a key junction in the Pretoria area, where mainlines to Musina and Komatipoort

meet. It is on the Pretoria Ring. Metrorail services to Mabopane pass through it, and Moloto rail will likely

pass by it.

- 108 -

vicinity, by converting it to light rail. Substantial development is

taking place along the Pretoria-Hartebeespoort Dam corridor: This

TFR right-of-way is ideally positioned to support sustainable mass

mobility, but is currently an eyesore and a nuisance to developers and

residents. One could recycle the existing formation by clearing

overgrowth, removing existing narrow gauge sleepers, cleaning and

augmenting ballast, laying rails on standard gauge sleepers, and

securing the right of way. With luck, the existing light branch line

rails could be re-used. An obsolete line need not be abandoned, but

could be made relevant by implementing appropriate contemporary

passenger rail technology, and recasting it from a mixed-use line to a

dedicated passenger line.

Support maximum speed in the range 160-200km/h78

. Infrastructure

design and performance requirements would inform the exact number.

Support short journey times, for example Pretoria-Johannesburg ≈40

minutes.

Support high capacity. Performance requirements would inform the

exact number. If demand were sufficient, 7–coach double deck trains,

with 1600 passengers, at five-minute headway, could move nearly

20 000 passengers per hour.

Note that the foregoing sections sketch a scenario by which to relate contemporary

passenger rail to a major conurbation, and thereby to illustrate possible contributions that

it could make. The outcome presented examined neither actual nor projected passenger

flows, made no attempt at optimizing station spacing and other variables, and undertook

no economic analysis, as they were outside the scope of this study.

Note that this scenario does not address interoperability with existing rail

operations, because if that were a prime requirement, one could not envision

such a scenario. By setting aside an inappropriate constraint, it is evident that

competitive contemporary rail can take the high ground, from which it can

naturally lead integrated mass transport for Gauteng.

5.5.1.3 The Gauteng-eThekwini Primary Corridor

From a passenger rail technology perspective, this route should be the prime candidate

for fast rail service in South Africa. The Rail Gauge Working Group (RGWG) examined

the topography and passenger volumes in the Gauteng-eThekwini Corridor, and

concluded that a high-speed passenger service might be feasible between Durban and

Gauteng in the distant future (National Transport, 2009f). Noting ambivalence in the

RGWG report regarding operating speed, this section will tease out some difference

between high-speed and ultra-high-speed over the route, and then add some

supplementary perspectives

78 If this proposal attracts interest, it may be advisable to revisit the maximum speed for the original

Moloto Rail portion of the route.

- 109 -

Lowest cost infrastructure would have steep gradients, with the tightest curves that a

standard gauge tilting train could negotiate, to minimize environmental impact and

construction cost. Commercially marketed tilting trains, e.g. Alstom’s Pendolino, and

Siemens’ Venturio concept, are designed for 250km/h. They would complete the

distance in an estimated running time of 3.8 hours. The alternative is a standard gauge

ultra-high-speed 360km/h train, which gives an estimated running time of 2.7 hours.

Both train types would accept the same steep gradients, but commercially available ultra-

high-speed trains do not tilt. Curves would therefore need to be wider than for tilting

trains, alternatively a non-tilting train would run slower than a tilting train through

curves speed-limited by natural obstacles such as mountains. Larger vertical curve radius

would also increase infrastructure cost for the faster train.

What is it worth to save 1.1 hours on a trip to Durban? Whichever way such a decision

might go, there is no legacy infrastructure available that could influence it. So the entire

route would be greenfields infrastructure. Commitment to the first alternative will likely

eliminate the second alternative for a generation or two, so it is important to understand

the drivers.

The notion of railways promoting development does not have much currency nowadays.

However, there is general recognition that the benefits of high-speed- and ultra-high-

speed railways extend beyond conventional cost-benefit analysis into the domain of

agglomeration effects. After 45 years of Shinkansen service, Japan’s economic

geography has changed remarkably, and few will argue that the change was not positive.

High-speed and ultra-high-speed railways are being mooted, signed up, or constructed in

several of South Africa’s economic peer countries, namely Argentina, Brazil, China,

India, Morocco, Russia, and. Turkey79

. The global economic downturn has upset some of

them, but the fundamentals are there for all to see.

Experience elsewhere in the world indicates that competitive ultra-high-speed rail should

almost completely displace air transport over the 670km distance between Gauteng and

Durban. This phenomenon should have a knock on effect on airport capacity—smaller

airports could be provided, or existing ones expanded more slowly, and the saving

attributed to rail. Rail links with airports allow international travelers to transfer quickly

to domestic destinations. How relevant are existing city-centre stations to the needs of

prospective travelers? One needs to recognize a much wider catchment area, and

consider service to multiple destinations, which air cannot do.

South Africa needs to develop an understanding of what drives decisions to

implement fast rail services in developing economies and, when the time is right,

seize the convergence between an advancing opportunity, and its understanding

of the drivers of such a decision. Failing to hit that nexus at the right time could

jeopardize its competitiveness vis-à-vis its economic peers.

79 Gross National Incomes in USD per capita for 2007 are: Argentina 5818, Russia 5780, Turkey 5400,

South Africa 4708, Brazil 3261, Morocco 1916, China 1696, and India 798.

- 110 -

5.5.1.4 The Gauteng-Cape Town Primary Corridor

The Johannesburg-Cape Town rail distance is 1519km. From §2.1.3.1, a fair amount of

the route has relatively large-radius curves, so re-aligning for ultra-high-speed trains

would be relatively easy over these portions. The remainder is topographically easy,

except the portion through the mountains that barricade Cape Town from the northeast to

the Indian Ocean. An ultra-high-speed train on standard gauge with a 360km/h maximum

speed would give a running time of 6 hours. Several questions arise:

Allowing, say, three hours for transit at the ends and stops en route,

would a door-to-door journey time by rail of around 9 hours compete

with air?

The route is largely single-tracked, and it is also likely to carry some

freight traffic. Would passenger traffic be sufficient to justify adding a

second line?

While large sections of the existing alignment could be re-aligned for

ultra-high-speed, would it be workable to do so under normal traffic,

or would it be necessary to build a completely new line80

(generally

near the existing line to minimize environmental impact)?

If freight trains had to share the route with ultra-high-speed passenger

trains, to help cover the cost of reconstruction or upgrading, would the

resulting operation be safe?

Would interoperability considerations require retention of the existing

line for narrow gauge freight trains to access the Western Cape81

, and

would such a scenario be workable?

Now that the infrastructure and performance attributes of the various contemporary train

types have been specified in §4.3, it could be insightful to undertake a desk study on the

modalities of changing gauge and increasing line speed to Cape Town. Noting the

outcome in respect to Gauteng-Durban, one may well find that the notion fades away.

5.5.1.5 Durban-Mthatha/East London/Port Elizabeth-Cape Town

This route is one of the primary High Priority Intra Provincial Corridors (South African

Rail, undated). Its rail presence, the so-called Cape-Natal Railway, never fully

materialized—the Mthatha-Kokstad portion is missing to this day. Rail is at a serious

disadvantage to competitors on this route. Its infrastructure is longest by far82

, and passes

through uninterrupted rugged terrain. Existing portions, constructed in the early 1900s,

are steep (2½-3%) and curvy (limited to 30-60km/h), which relegates average speed to

the same league as maritime transport. East-west road freight is generally of diverse

origin-destination and lading, and of high value, so one should expect it to remain on the

N2 route. Containers and liquid fuel typically move by sea. Given rail’s disadvantages in

80 The recently opened high-speed double line from Ankara to Eskisehir in Turkey was built close to the

existing single-track line.

81 Noting that the Sishen-Saldanha line is currently being extensively upgraded to raise capacity, it is likely

to remain on narrow gauge for a generation or more. It could provide narrow gauge access into the

Western Cape via the Saldanha-Kalbaskraal-Kraaifontein line.

82 Rail 2431km, road 1755km, sea 1586km, air 1342km.

- 111 -

terms of distance and transit time, it is unlikely to capture traffic currently on sea. Thus,

if the route supports rail at all, it remains beholden to passenger trains.

Noting the existence of a proposal for a Mthatha-Port Elizabeth High-speed Link in

§5.5.4, this section concerns the remaining portion. For passenger trains, the most

workable option would be to dedicate the line from Cape Town to George to passenger

trains only, following the Mthatha-Port Elizabeth model, and recycling infrastructure by:

Redeveloping old branch line alignments by steepening gradients and

easing curves for passenger-only operation,

Re-gauging track to standard gauge,

Dual-gauging if and where necessary, and

Raising maximum speed, to 200km/h, possibly with tilting trains, to

achieve a four-hour Cape Town-George journey time.

As in the case of Mthatha-Port Elizabeth, it could be worth constructing a new link of

some 45km from Protem (an offshoot of the Eerste River-Bredasdorp branch) to

Swellendam (on the Worcester-George line). This would avoid the detour through

Tulbagh Kloof, and revitalize the moribund railway through the touristy areas of Sir

Lowry’s Pass, Elgin, and the Overberg, before joining the Worcester-George line at

Swellendam. Total estimated Cape Town-George distance would be 520km (slightly

shorter than the estimated 590km for Mthatha-Port Elizabeth. The route is curvy, except

for 15km near straight between Albertinia and the aptly-named Reisiesbaan station.

George-Port Elizabeth by rail is 516km, inland through mountainous terrain, against

343km on the N2 road. High-speed rail over that distance could not beat a bus or car at

normal speed on a good road, so it seems pointless to contemplate improving passenger

rail on that sector.

Note that this rail proposal runs parallel to the N2 road, and that airlines do the

George-Cape Town flight inside an hour. Stakeholders should recognize that

passenger rail would be severely challenged to come up with a winning solution.

If it cannot rise to that challenge, rail service in that corridor is likely to become

extinct.

5.5.1.6 The eThekwini North-South Corridor

eThekwini is remarkably compact by comparison with South Africa’s other conurbations

with urban rail. Taking the Priority A corridors from the SARCC National Railplan

Consolidated Report, it is evident that the Umlazi-CBD and Kwa Mashu-CBD routes are

within ideal metro distance of 25-35km. Journey time at an average speed of 45km/h

should be acceptable at 40 minutes.

Noting from §5.3.2.4 that contemporary metro can raise capacity by a factor of three or

more compared to existing systems, it should be possible to extract substantially more

capacity from existing right of way, provided that signalling can support the requisite

short headway. This should accommodate growth on existing corridors, or support

extension of service to wider catchment areas without requiring additional tracks as the

common route approaches the CBD.

- 112 -

It is noted that there is concern regarding high passenger density and its associated risk in

incidents and accidents. This could also contribute to capacity per train being somewhat

lower than in several other countries. When re-signalling a metro route for higher

capacity with matching new rolling stock, the incremental cost, if any, for ATP is likely

to be much less than sacrificing passenger capacity to mitigate risk. A recommendation

is made in this regard (see §6.2.4).

Services further north and south pose an interesting challenge. Stanger and Kelso are

approximately 65km from the CBD, so contemporary metro trains, for a journey time of

1½ hours, would be unacceptably slow. The routes are low priority, so it would be

difficult to make a case for standard gauge track to raise speed. TFR may one day re-

gauge the North Coast line to Richards Bay, and commuter services could presumably

share the facility. However, a re-gauged South Coast line is a remote possibility.

Arguably, the most rational solution would be re-gearing a portion of a new,

contemporary narrow gauge metro fleet for 130km/h maximum speed, for North- and

South Coast regional services. Such trains would be able to interoperate with normal

metro stock, at the same speed, on lines signaled for high capacity with relatively minor

disruption. Of course, some infrastructure work would be required for 130km/h running

outside the metro area.

5.5.1.7 Gauteng-Bloemfontein

The rail distance from Johannesburg to Bloemfontein is 405km. Using existing

infrastructure and rolling stock, the best timing one could expect is 6-6½ hours. The best

Shosholoza Meyl schedules are in this range, some extending to around 7 hours,

depending on number of stops. Any delays, or allowance for delays, would lengthen the

schedule. Any material improvement would require a different rail technology solution,

as explained below.

The Johannesburg-Vereeniging-Kroonstad section has many curves in the 700-849m

bracket, rated by TFR for 90km/h. South of Kroonstad the situation improves slightly

over the following sections.

o Bosrand-Eensgevonden 205km

o Houtenbeck-Bloemfontein 68km

o Total 273km

These sections would be good for up to 130km/h on the existing 1067mm track gauge, if

appropriately maintained. Note that the curves within the abovementioned sections are

not all suitable for higher speeds: It was assumed that any general speed increase would

require re-alignment of several isolated83

low-speed curves, to obtain clear high-speed

runs over meaningful distances.

However, if re-gauged to standard gauge, the 1250-1450m radius curves in the

abovementioned sections would still only be good for around 140km/h, which would not

provide decisive advantage over 1067mm track gauge. Raising speed to 140km/h where

83 Although isolated, they are generally low-speed because a relatively small radius was used to negotiate

natural obstacles such as water courses and water sheds. Realigning them may be expensive.

- 113 -

possible would reduce the journey time by almost 1½ hour, to 4½-5 hours, which is

unlikely to change rail’s competitive ranking relative to air or road.

It is therefore evident that the legacy curve radii on this route cannot support sufficient

benefit to justify simply changing to standard gauge track. For rail to improve its

competitive position, it needs to run at substantially higher speed than at present. This

would require increasing curve radii to match the maximum speed envisaged (entry level

160km/h, possibly 200km/h). This would in turn involve substantial deviation works, in

addition to the cost of changing to standard gauge (or to dual gauge). By the same

reasoning, retaining narrow gauge but increasing curve radii for 130km/h would also

involve substantial capital expenditure without materially increasing rail’s competitive

position.

To exploit the speed potential of standard gauge track, consider the scenario of

constructing a new standard gauge route84

, with appropriate curve radii, to extend the

Gauteng Regional Rail scenario in §5.5.1.2 southwards to Bloemfontein, as shown on

the map below. Johannesburg-Vereeniging would take 37 minutes: At the same average

speed, the remaining distance to Bloemfontein could take 3 hours. At 200km/h

maximum speed, Johannesburg-Bloemfontein would be possible in three hours; at

160km/h maximum speed, it would take around 3½ hours. Such timings could induce the

84 The synergy between passenger traffic and TFR on the Johannesburg-Bloemfontein route might be

limited, unless it also found a need for standard gauge. The 1% ruling gradient is among TFR’s flattest on

its core network, so it is unlikely to need a new alignment to flatten gradients. One reason it might need

standard gauge is if it developed substantial container traffic, and wanted to implement double stacking.

- 114 -

modal shift to rail that government seeks, from both road and air. Concurrently, it would

stimulate wider benefits such as agglomeration effects, reduced greenhouse gas

emissions, increased accessibility for peripheral regions; and for road, reduced

congestion, and increased safety. One can even conceive of extending the standard gauge

route to Thaba Nchu, 65km from Bloemfontein, possibly by dual gauging a portion of

the existing line eastwards to Maseru and Modderpoort.

Note that the existing Gauteng-Bloemfontein route is double tracked. Instead of

constructing a new route, and depending on relative freight- and passenger capacity

requirements, it may be feasible to convert it to two single tracks—one would remain

narrow gauge, the other would be converted to standard gauge. Curve radii would be

increased as appropriate on the standard gauge line. This option could minimize

environmental impact and construction costs, and leverage value from TFR’s reputed

underutilized capacity.

Overall, this scenario could extend benefits of rail access to several corridors and

municipalities on PRASA’s high-priority list. In the light of the questions raised in

§5.5.1.4, the scenario in this section may also represent a sensible intermediate stage for

the Gauteng-Bloemfontein-Cape Town Primary Corridor, at least with contemporary

passenger rail technology.

5.5.1.8 Gauteng-eThekwini via the Coal Line

One could view a possible Gauteng-eThekwini-via-the-Coal-Line route in the context of

PRASA’s Gauteng-Witbank-Richards Bay and Durban-Richards Bay-Nelspruit Primary

Corridors. It would be valuable if one could find synergy with existing Coal Line

infrastructure.

The 247km section Johannesburg-Ermelo via Trichardt, to connect with the northern end

of the Coal Line, traverses relatively easy terrain, on single track beyond Springs.

Existing alignment, if appropriately maintained, would be good for the current maximum

passenger train speed of 90km/h: Noting that it carries substantial coal traffic, there

would likely be contention for capacity. Simple conversion to standard gauge, or dual

gauging to coexist with TFR, is likely to yield the same outcome as the existing

Johannesburg-Bloemfontein route discussed above, namely it would not yield

meaningful reduction in running time. Easing curves to increase speed would add

substantial cost.

The 412km Coal Line, from Ermelo to Richards Bay was commissioned in 1976, and

substantially upgraded in the mid 1980s. It is therefore features South Africa’s most

modern alignment. Its design parameters were optimized for exporting coal through

rugged terrain: They resulted in a line with many curves of relatively small-radius. Aside

from the 98km section between Ermelo and Piet Retief, which has curve radii in the

1000-2000m range, the remainder has many curves in the 600-800m range, the smallest

radius being 503m. The line speed is therefore 80km/h, and the curves are superelevated

accordingly. The integration of the infrastructure and trains is thus perfectly suited to its

intended heavy haul purpose. However, from a passenger service perspective, there

would be no advantage in using that route as is. Even re-gauging to standard gauge

would not materially change the inherent constraint imposed by its relatively small

radius curves.

- 115 -

The Coal Line illustrates the principle that optimum design of guided transport

systems, such as railways, requires close alignment of infrastructure- and rolling

stock characteristics with their intended purpose. Except in nearly flat terrain with

no natural obstacles, it is as impractical to operate high-speed trains on heavy

haul infrastructure as it is to operate heavy haul trains on high-speed

infrastructure.

The 195km section Empangeni to Durban is riddled with small–radius curves limited to

50-, 60-, or 70km/h. In its present form, it does not offer significant passenger service

potential.

Although the overall Johannesburg-Ermelo-Durban route option is only some 130km

longer than the direct route via Newcastle, on existing infrastructure it simply adds

distance, without contributing higher speed potential in return. Without upgrading for

higher speed, it therefore cannot contribute usefully to passenger service aspirations.

Noting the prevailing rugged terrain, all the way from Piet Retief to Durban, acceleration

of passenger train schedules would require substantial investment in new infrastructure.

In that context, any proposal would need to be evaluated against other options.

The following scenario could be one such option. A combination of ultra-high-speed

service in the Johannesburg-Durban corridor, plus good regional services radiating from

Johannesburg (among other to Witbank and Nelspruit), and from Durban (among other

to Richards Bay) could conceivably concentrate demand sufficiently to justify hub-and-

spoke rail linkages, rather than dilute the demand on more direct but more dispersed

corridors, which individually could not support the requisite investment. This scenario

should be explored further within the NATMAP process.

5.5.1.9 Learning from the routes selected

The seven routes or scenarios selected in §5.5.1 have a common thread: They

illustrate possible outcomes of overlaying contemporary passenger railway

technology on portions of South Africa. By comparison with the legacy passenger

rail system, both the socio-economic challenges and the technological solutions

are now vastly different. When integrated with all other possible challenges and

routes, the future national mass mobility solution is likely to be a new departure,

rather than an extension of anything from the past. Contemporary passenger rail

technology offers competitive rail positioning that addresses different

opportunities, which must therefore lead to different outcomes.

5.5.2 PRASA plans

5.5.2.1 General comments

For the purpose of the following comments and discussion, the Consultant has perused

the SARCC documents National Railplan Consolidated Report of August 2006, the

Business Plan 2008/09, and the undated PowerPoint presentation Rail Revitalization in

Rural and Intercity Context. The planning methodology and process is considered fair,

sincere, rational, professional, and diligent. The treatment of PRASA’s strategic

direction will therefore be cast in terms of §4 of this report, i.e. from a passenger rail

technology perspective only. If comment is necessary, it is couched constructively.

- 116 -

No technology migration plan is implicit in the Business Plan. It appears that existing

SARCC plans and strategic direction rest on extension and replication of existing

technology. They do not open up migration paths to implement options from the menu of

contemporary passenger rail solutions. While perusal of the document thus far should

also lead to that conclusion, a few key insights are lifted out before moving on to

recommendations.

5.5.2.2 Rolling stock implicit in plans

While Metrorail rolling stock has been upgraded in recent years, it nevertheless remains

based on a fundamentally old design, which has inevitably imposed limitations. The

following comparative diagram gives the requisite insight into the rolling stock implicit

in existing SARCC plans.

It is evident that a shift to contemporary passenger stock would be appropriate. Note that

no mention is made of Shosholoza Meyl stock. It would fare the same under a similar

comparison. However, it is so far removed from contemporary regional and high-speed

trains that a comparison will serve no purpose. It is best kept on a run-out basis (see

§6.6.2).

CRITERION Metrorail 5M/10M Contemporary EMU

High acceleration

High retardation

High speed

Video surveillance

Control-to-passenger communication

Passenger-to-driver communication

Safety Automatic train protection

Enduring crashworthiness

Efficient power electronics

Regenerative braking

High-capacity signaling

Level entry

Passenger information system

Air springs

Tight-lock couplers

Stepless braking control

Stepless traction control

Sound insulation

Plug doors

Heating

Ventilation

Air conditioning

Security

Greening

Mobility

Convenience

5.5.2.3 Rolling stock options

The diagram below shows only the steel-wheel-on-steel rail contenders. Rubber-wheel

contenders have been omitted, because the diagram becomes too crowded in the low

speed /low capacity corner. That is a good sign of intense competition in the light mass

mobility segment, so they obviously should also be considered. A recommendation is

made in this regard (see §6.2.6).

- 117 -

The Figure shows the positioning of existing 5M/10M stock relative to contemporary rail

technology mainstream solutions. Note that, for positioning purposes, there is no

difference between 5M and 10M. In terms of capacity, both higher and lower rated

solutions are available. In terms of speed, both higher and lower rated solutions are also

available. System integrators have differentiated their offerings to maximize their

competitiveness in particular market spaces. The 5M/10M solution is under attack from

all directions, as follows:

For lower capacity and lower speed, light rail would do a creditable

job. However, if the only choice is between road solutions and

5M/10M, the decision may go in favour of bus, or even BRT, without

giving the greener and more developmentally formative light rail a

showing.

For higher capacity and lower speed, light metro or metro would do a

creditable job. However, if the only choice is between alternative

spatial development and a maxed-out 5M/10M solution, the decision

may go in favour of alternative development, without giving the

greener and more capable high capacity rail solutions a showing.

For higher speed and moderate capacity, regional rail would do a

creditable job. However, if the only choice is between a 5M/10M

solution and road, the default decision goes in favour of the urban

sprawl that road supports so well, without giving the greener and more

developmentally formative regional rail a showing.

For ultra-high-speed and moderate capacity, current narrow gauge

rail, whether 5M/10M or Shosholoza Meyl, is not in the running at all.

Applicable national development outcomes thus take on a minus rail colour: Regarding

the competitiveness of nations, this can only disadvantage South Africa.

- 118 -

In terms of the systems approach, whatever the rules of the game (in the case of

organismic adaptation) or the rules of engagement (in the case of socio-cultural

adaptation), a solution will emerge, but it could bring unintended consequences

with it. Not permitting and encouraging the best solution to emerge must

compromise sustainability, whether environmental, economic, or social.

5.5.2.4 Rural Rail Plan

While SARCC Business Plan 2008/09 refers to a Rural Rail Plan85

, it is understood to

not yet be complete. The following comments are thus based on fragmented but coherent

information. Branch lines do not currently enjoy passenger service. Indeed, they were the

first to lose passenger service as rail’s competitiveness declined, and the relative

competitiveness of other modes ascended. Branch lines were therefore not addressed

under status quo in §2, but rather as a distinct issue in this Section.

Branch lines were generally not upgraded86

, as were main lines, in the first half of the

previous century. They therefore generally follow contour routes to minimize

earthworks. Small-radius curves abound, so route distances are significantly longer than

road, more than 50% in some instances. Gradients are steep, and light-axle-load branch

line diesel locomotives have small engines, so balancing speeds are low. Overall,

performance is way behind any other motorized transport mode. Therefore, the demise of

branch lines, other than those that carry heavy traffic (e.g. Steelpoort-Belfast), should

come as no surprise.

The flagship Kei Rail project is the only current South African example of branch line

revitalization. Whilst attractively refurbished rolling stock is used, the branch line basics

remain. Maximum speeds are Amabele-Komga 50km/h, Komga Butterworth 30km/h,

Butterworth- Mthatha 40km/h. Average speed, excluding stops, is ≈33km/h (Spoornet,

2005). Eastern Cape Province is leading the project aggressively, which may in time

prove to be the only way to revitalize a branch line. They appear to require a subsidy

from provincial government, or other public entity with an appetite for such support. In

this respect, Kei Rail is comparable to many United States short lines. They also receive

subvention from local authorities, dependent customers, or whoever else has an interest

in keeping them open.

The alternative, concessioning, frequently leads to asset stripping. This is also

unsurprising, because if there is insufficient revenue, a concessionaire is left with no

option but to strip what it can.

From a passenger rail technology perspective, neither subvention nor

concessioning normally or readily support new or upgraded technology. Branch

line operators tend to make do with whatever used equipment they can afford.

85 Page 8.

86 There are exceptions, such as Belfast-Steelpoort, which was re-railed for heavy traffic. However, the

alignment is still original.

- 119 -

6 Recommendations

6.1 General approach

6.1.1 Seize the opportunity

It is important to recognize that the present passenger rail technology backlog in South

Africa offers a huge opportunity for implementation of contemporary passenger rail

solutions. There has been little irreversible commitment to new systems in recent times,

hence the way is open to recommend and to implement global good or best practice.

The course of the study to this point suggests that recommendations should follow a top-

down approach, recognizing capacity and associated investment drivers. Recalling that

systems are hierarchical, stakeholders should get the passenger mass transport vision and

backbone system concept right, then add lower level sub-systems: Intercity and metro

first, then light rail and regional rail, and ultimately buses and taxis.

The Consultant recognizes that the Client has already undertaken substantial

investigation and planning of aspects that relate to, and possibly overlap, some of the

recommendations below. They do not claim to be an alternative, but rather offer a

framework within which to flesh out the passenger rail technology aspects of previous

work.

6.1.2 Make opening moves

Existing Metrorail rolling stock is not far off global standards in terms of basic

dimensions. System integrators are geared to accommodate variants, and car bodies to

the South African height and width could be readily sourced. Narrow gauge bogies also

exist, and accommodating adequate traction motors is not a challenge. Other major

subsystems, such as control, propulsion, suspension, braking, coupling, communication,

heating ventilation and air conditioning, doors, safety and security, and many other

minor sub-systems, do not depend on track gauge or vehicle profile, and are available in

a competitive global market. South Africa’s 3kV dc is not unique, and could provide an

acceptable traction power supply, at least in the early stages of new investment, although

it is not a global standard.

Recommendation 1: Proceed confidently to acquire state-of-the-

art steel-wheel-on-steel-rail metro rolling stock, as and when

funds become available. If it does not exist, draw up a

performance specification. If one does exist, update it in the light

of the recommendations that follow.

Recommendation 2: Compile the performance specification to

allow the greatest possible freedom regarding non-critical

requirements, to allow system integrators the greatest possible

freedom to re-use existing solutions.

Recommendation 3: Contemporary metro rolling stock requires

matched signalling to ensure high performance and minimum

equipment for a given capacity: Synchronize rolling stock

acquisition with implementation of complementary signalling,

probably on a route-by-route basis.

- 120 -

6.2 Address passenger rail technology issues

6.2.1 Migrate to standard gauge

Cities and countries around the world are increasingly basing mass mobility on

integrated transport solutions built on a rail foundation. Since economic globalization

started in the 1990s, not one such initiative has rested on narrow gauge. Standard track

gauge, and all the technical parameters that associate with it, have become the entry

ticket. South Africa is unlikely to join that league if it does not play by the same rules.

Recommendation 4: Use standard gauge track for all new

integrated infrastructure-plus-rolling-stock projects, even if they

initially stand alone.

Recommendation 5: Support piecemeal migration by

segmenting operations, where workable, to create opportunities

to plant standard gauge when rolling stock is renewed.

6.2.2 Rationalize vehicle profile and platform height

South Africa’s present vehicle gauge is not much smaller than many standard gauge

profiles, but it does not comply with any particular internationally recognized standard.

Where track might be changed to standard gauge, non-preferred or non-standard vehicle

profiles would come at a price premium. There is also no point in making the best of a

bad job by moving to a different position on the constraint map.

As opportunities arise for implementation of new rail passenger technology solutions,

consideration should be given to wider, more energy efficient, lower cost, single- and

double decker vehicles, both in regional and interurban applications. The non-

interoperability between Gautrain and Moloto Rail should also not be repeated.

Platform heights should also be addressed, to resolve differences between metro-,

regional-, and intercity applications. They should recognize universal access/handicap

access requirements, as well as level-entry requirements for high-capacity systems.

It is recognized that there is no quick fix, but countries and regions that have successfully

tackled their railway vehicle size issues have done so progressively. The following

recommendations also present an opportunity to align with global best practice.

Recommendation 6: Allow a sufficiently large vehicle profile for

all inherently competitive railway applications. In the case of

passenger routes, accommodate double deck coaches and full-

width bodies.

Recommendation 7: Determine a platform height, or heights,

which optimizes allowable vehicle width for regional and

intercity applications.

Recommendation 8: Determine a platform height that will

support level entry for urban rail applications (Metro, and if

applicable, Light Metro).

- 121 -

Recommendation 9: Determine an optimum, possibly

internationally recognized, vehicle profile for implementation of

new passenger railway technology in South Africa, with due

regard for its small leverage in the global market.

Recommendation 10: Provide non-opening, restricted-opening,

or emergency-opening windows, if and when necessary on

wider vehicles, to keep heads and limbs inside, and provide air

conditioning to control climate.

Recommendation 11: Recognize that TFR could also have an

interest in a larger vehicle profile, and secure whatever synergy

is workable.

Recommendation 12: Clear any routes or tracks that are re-

gauged or dual-gauged to standard gauge simultaneously for

vehicle profiles per Recommendation 6.

6.2.3 Set aside selected interoperability requirements

Noting that it is unrealistic to change South Africa’s entire passenger rail system in a

single intervention, the pragmatic alternative is to do it piecemeal. It is therefore

necessary to open interaction among the various railway systems and sub-systems, and

their operational and technological environments, to elevate and to enlarge the overall

system, to admit all stakeholders, including system integrators, and to loosen interaction

among them. Note also that the SARCC Rail Plan Consolidated Report87

raises the issue

of complexity of the network, e.g. Wits and Western Cape: Segmenting subsystems is a

useful way of reducing complexity by easing interoperability constraints.

Recommendation 13: Set aside interoperability requirements in

situations where they impede implementation of new rail

technologies and migration to competitive contemporary

passenger rail solutions. If this recommendation is not

implemented, meaningful renewal and upgrading will not be

possible.

6.2.4 Implement automatic train protection

The Client gives safety a high priority. Existing systems of train control and operator

compliance with movement and speed authorities have lagged behind global good

practice in the same way as the more visible aspects of passenger rail technology. When

re-signalling a metro route for higher capacity with matching new rolling stock, or re-

signalling lines to support higher speed services, the incremental cost, if any, for ATP is

likely to be small.

Recommendation 14: Equip all new matched infrastructure-and-

rolling-stock applications with automatic train protection to give

peace of mind, increase performance, and eliminate senseless

87 Page 4.

- 122 -

damage to property, and injury or death to passengers, public,

and employees.

6.2.5 Evaluate automatic train operation

If one accepts the need for automatic train protection and video surveillance, and notes

the sophisticated control technology that comes with contemporary multiple unit metro

sets, the incremental complexity and cost to advance to automatic train operation is

relatively small. Furthermore, train driving is not a popular occupation, particularly with

respect to working shifts to cover morning and afternoon urban rail demand peaks. The

ability and cost of operators being able to offer service in sparsely used times at night

depends on being able to schedule train drivers. If necessary, people employed in the

driving task could be redeployed to provide passenger care, a function envisaged in

SARCC’s Business Plan 2008/09.

Recommendation 15: Investigate and develop a position on

automatic train operation for metro (and possibly Light Metro)

services, with due regard to overall utility and value of the rail

system to its community, and incremental cost of providing it on

all new matched infrastructure-and-rolling-stock applications.

6.2.6 Examine rubber-tyred solutions

Rubber-tyred guided mass mobility solutions have not yet emerged in South Africa.

They appear to have potential in the market space between buses and metro. Noting that

several urban commuter corridors in offer more traffic than buses should handle, but less

than can support current Metrorail service, there appears to space for such solutions.

Recommendation 16: Assess the capability and cost-

effectiveness of Automated Light Metro (VAL) in selected

corridors that where demand would marginally justify Metrorail

service by current criteria.

Recommendation 17: Examine how Automated Light Metro will

be institutionally recognized, and how that recognition might

influence its evaluation with respect to alternative modes such

as BRT and Light Metro.

6.3 Segment and focus

6.3.1 Create space

To create space within which to introduce and nurture contemporary passenger rail

solutions, it is appropriate to segment the passenger rail network into standalone sub-

networks, as far as is reasonably practical, and with due regard to the many sensitivities

that such an intervention will touch. Any greenfields routes would greatly facilitate such

an intervention.

Such space can only be institutionally created, to allow stakeholders to create a shared

vision and then get on with implementing it. From an open, socio-cultural systems

perspective, one cannot determine the ultimate outcome up front. However, it will be

robust and satisfying.

- 123 -

6.3.2 Physically separate metro and mainline operations

The first objective is to physically separate metro from other passenger services88

, and

from freight services. This is indeed envisioned in TFR’s National Infrastructure Plan,

but it should also envision mutual exclusivity. That is, TFR would allow metro

operations their own space, but equally there should be no access by TFR to metro

operations89

. This arrangement would reduce network complexity, and allow each

operator to dedicate its infrastructure and rolling stock to best advantage.

Recommendation 18: Work toward, by identification of existing

exceptions, and timetabled plans to eliminate them,

consummation of the existing intent to separate physically

metro and mainline operations, to allow planning for future

metro investment to maximize its value.

6.3.3 Share freight and passenger corridors

Dedicated freight and passenger rail corridors are ideal, but they are probably largely out

of reach in South Africa in the short- to medium term. This means that all passenger rail

applications outside metro (as addressed in §6.3.2), i.e. Shosholoza Meyl at present, and

any regional- and intercity applications that may develop in future, will need to coexist

with TFR. However, freight rail in general (and there are exceptions) is not well

positioned against its natural competitor, road transport. TFR’s ability to collaborate on

future long distance passenger rail technology applications thus rests on fragile freight

rail positioning.

Recommendation 19: Analyze possible areas of synergy, and

contention, between legacy long-distance infrastructure

(currently TFR and a few PRASA assets) and possible future

passenger operations that should ideally exploit advanced

railway technology, including standard gauge track. Do this on a

route-by-route basis.

Recommendation 20: Assess the viability and stability of TFR’s

strategic future, by way of a study similar to the present study,

to develop an appreciation of whether its sustainability might

influence routes and shared infrastructure of interest to regional

and intercity passenger services.

6.3.4 Align capacity and signalling

Contemporary signalling or train control needs to be aligned with rolling stock

characteristics, separately for metro and mainline applications, to optimize the tradeoff

between speed and headway, capacity and running time.

88 The institutional linkage between metro- and other passenger services (note lower case names) is

recognized and respected. The intent of the recommendation is to create an environment that is not

confounded by interoperability issues, but which can focus on moving forward to optimize the match

between passenger requirements and rail technologies that best support them.

89 This could affect existing TFR customers served via lines owned by SARCC.

- 124 -

Recommendation 21: Examine the interaction between

contemporary metro rolling stock performance, and appropriate

signalling upgrade or renewal for local conditions, and develop a

high-level system specification for expected throughput

performance.

Recommendation 22: Examine the interaction between

contemporary regional- and high-speed rolling stock

performance, and possible train authorization system upgrades

or overlays on mainline routes, and develop a high-level system

specification for expected performance on standard-gauged or

dual-gauged track.

6.4 Develop metro infrastructure-and-rolling-stock prototype

On several, perhaps many, metro corridors, it is likely that at least one generation of new

contemporary rolling stock will reach the end of its working life before the track gauge

issue becomes pressing. It is however important not to dilute and obscure potential

benefits by introducing new rolling stock into an environment where its performance,

reliability, and maintainability benefits cannot be exploited and measured (or will be

handicapped and dissipated).

Recommendation 23: Select one route as a new-technology

prototype for early full infrastructure and rolling stock upgrade.

Learn and debug in preparation for rollout to other routes.

6.5 Rationalize special trackwork

Many crossovers in metro areas result from overlaying freight service on a passenger

network. Clearance for TFR vehicles precludes modifying crossings for higher speed.

Physically separating metro from other services will allow removal of these

impediments.

Recommendation 24: Determine which crossovers are required

for passenger service, and retain them. Remove those that are

required for freight purposes to reduce maintenance.

Recommendation 25: Raise guard rails to increase speed from

30km/h to 60km/h through crossings. Prohibit access by TFR

rolling stock.

6.6 Re-brand passenger rail services

6.6.1 Segment Metrorail

At least two segments with potential tighter focus are present within existing Metrorail.

They are Metrorail’s interpretation of metro, comprising services into city centers over

distances that would suit contemporary metro, namely 25-35km. Then there are services

more akin to regional rail over longer distances, for example between Johannesburg and

Pretoria or Vereeniging. Type 5M/10M trains currently work both segments, but satisfy

neither by comparison with contemporary rolling stock solutions.

- 125 -

Recommendation 26: Create new sub-brands within PRASA, to

reflect the focused mass mobility solutions that contemporary

rolling stock will ultimately support when it becomes available.

Recommendation 27: Identify routes, corridors, operations,

whatever, that one can conceptually separate now for purposes

of planning new or upgraded technology, with a view to

operational separation when contemporary rolling stock

becomes available.

Recommendation 28: Prioritize renewal/upgrade projects

identified in terms of Recommendation 27, with a view to shifting

shorter routes to true metro, and shifting longer routes to

regional rail, each with its own rolling stock and, to the extent

workable, its own infrastructure.

6.6.2 Segment Shosholoza Meyl

At least two segments with potentially tighter focus are present within the existing

Shosholoza Meyl. One is its traditional long-distance services from Johannesburg to the

coastal cities. The other is what one could consider regional rail services to Polokwane-

Musina and Nelspruit-Komatipoort (and probably additional destinations in future).

EMU or DMU sets similar to Metrorail’s notional ―regional‖ services to Pretoria and

Vereeniging could ultimately work the latter, particularly if standard gauge track

eventually becomes available. See recommendation 31 regarding the remaining segment.

Recommendation 29: Segment Shosholoza Meyl into medium-

distance and long-distance services.

Recommendation 30: Focus on opportunities to implement

contemporary rail solutions, not on existing rolling stock. The

medium-distance segment within Shosholoza Meyl would align

with, and ultimately integrate into, the similar Metrorail segment,

to deliver regional rail services.

Recommendation 31: Recognize that Shosholoza Meyl’s long-

distance segment does not align with any contemporary rail

solution, and that its long-term sustainability could be

problematic.

6.6.3 Re-deploy 5M/10M rolling stock

Unless dedicated standard gauge regional networks are viable, and some could be viable,

it will likely be several years before TFR comes round to changing track gauge to

standard.

Recommendation 32: Noting that it seems likely that new metro

stock will be the first contemporary rail solution in South Africa,

as it displaces existing Metrorail rolling stock, and to the extent

that a surplus develops, 10Ms and surviving 5Ms could be

deployed on the 3kV dc routes radiating out from most cities.

- 126 -

This could create a first round of regional services, to be

followed up by high-performance regional trains, preferably on

standard gauge.

6.7 Inform policy formulation

6.7.1 Ensure unobstructed migration paths

It should be evident from the preceding portion of this study that narrow gauge railways

are out of the global mainstream, and that indulging interests that wish to preserve the

track gauge status quo imposes a price premium on new rolling stock now and

marginalizes narrow gauge railways into the future. However, without dealing with the

interoperability issue, there can be no change. The debate around interoperability with

the legacy systems versus the opportunity cost of not making a clean break needs

resolution as follows:

Recommendation 33: Recognize that unfounded interoperability

requirements90 may impede progress toward implementing

contemporary rail solutions—consider all situations where

interoperability is unavoidable, and determine the minimum set

of interoperability requirements91 for each.

Recommendation 34: In situations where interoperability

appears unavoidable, but has potential to obstruct

implementation of contemporary rail solutions, seek means to

mitigate the problem rather than use it as a barrier to progress.

Recommendation 35: Recognize that interoperability for the

sake of convenience92, may need to be foregone in some

situations to achieve overall optimization of a particular

geographic mass mobility system.

Recommendation 36: Recognize that a physical connection

among standard gauge systems would be advantageous, to

reallocate resources if and when demand changes between

cities or regions93. However, recognize also that unless and until

that happens in the course of natural development, road transfer

is possible, as in the case of cars for Gautrain.

6.7.2 Maximize contribution by local industry

Globalization of the railway industry suggests the following strategy to extract maximum

local value for South Africa:

90 For example, between light rail and freight, metro and freight, regional rail and metro, and possibly

others.

91 For example, tram-train could require standard gauge track and 25kV ac electrification, but not AAR

couplers and -end strength.

92 For example, to avoid changing trains at an intermediate interchange stations.

93 At least one common node would be ideal—somewhere in Gauteng seems a natural place.

- 127 -

Recommendation 37: Grow the size of the railway footprint on

South Africa, to maximize the shift from road to rail where that is

economically justified,

Recommendation 38: Trade off purchase price against extent of

expansion or renewal for a given quantum of funding to best

advantage.

Recommendation 39: Identify local opportunities to maximize

added value, in construction, management, operations and

maintenance, information technology, legal services, and so on,

Recommendation 40: Avoid becoming locked into suppliers that

have been attracted into the market, and eventually becoming

responsible for them, and

Recommendation 41: Recognize the need for rolling stock fleet

scalability94, i.e. the ability to acquire small incremental

quantities for the vehicle fleet. This requires a trade off between

commitment to local manufacture and the flexibility to acquire

from the global market, by purchase or lease, new or second

hand.

6.7.3 Establish appropriate standards

This study has described a wide range of generic rail solutions, to give broad insight into

the state of the industry. However, South Africa should be wary of importing a

miscellany of standards and/or technologies. For example, Gautrain is being built to UK

vehicle profile standards, while Moloto rail could be built to European vehicle profile

standards, and they are not interoperable. Regional infrastructure shared between freight

and passenger trains might be signaled to North American standards. Each in its own

right could be a sound solution, but their integration and interoperation might be a

technological challenge.

Recommendation 42: One of the first projects in acquiring

contemporary passenger rail solutions for South Africa should

be determination of appropriate technical standards.

6.8 Plan future study phases

6.8.1 Scope

The proposal included the following phases beyond Phase 1, this Framework Report.

6.8.2 Phase 2—Stakeholder workshop

The foregoing material is comprehensive. It touches on several aspects that taken

individually may not find immediate acceptance, but which contribute to a robust overall

solution. During preparation of this report, the Consultant gathered from stakeholders

that there was a need to boost appreciation of what good passenger rail is, what it can do,

94 To avoid the New Generation 6M, 7M, 8M, and 9M saga, that eventually came to naught.

- 128 -

and how to do it. To find alignment among stakeholders, it is recommended that they be

exposed to dialectical inquiry to ensure that the migration path is socio-culturally

acceptable.

It is estimated that preparation for the Stakeholder Workshop, running the workshop

itself, and formulation of terms of reference for international consultants thereafter, will

require six weeks.

6.8.3 Phase 3a—Selected local case studies

This Phase was addressed by the Railway Gauge Working Group in respect of Gautrain

and Moloto Rail, and rounded out in this report in respect of a Mthatha-Port Elizabeth

high-speed link, so it can be considered complete.

6.8.4 Phase 3b International—specific questions for international consultants

6.8.4.1 Introduction

Railways in several countries have already implemented one or more of the passenger

rail technologies contemplated in this proposal. It would accelerate appreciation of the

potential contribution, of appropriate contemporary rail technology, to solutions in South

Africa, by acquiring insight into relevant international solutions. This approach would be

particularly valuable regarding aspects with which South Africa is unfamiliar, simply

because it has not yet had exposure to such rail technology solutions, and therefore has

no indigenous real world data on which to base analysis and comparisons.

6.8.4.2 Nature of Phase 3

At this stage, Phase 3b must necessarily be regarded as open-ended until its terms of

reference have been completed, and the ensuing contractual arrangements with

international-, and possibly local, consultants have been concluded. Actual execution

time for Phase 3b will of course depend on the scope of work and the capacity of the

consultants engaged to handle it.

6.8.4.3 Methodology

Railway Corporate Strategy CC (RCS) will draw up terms of reference for international

consultants to address whatever questions emanate from the Framework Report and the

Stakeholder Workshop.

After clarifying the terms of reference with the Client, RCS will liaise with the

international consultants for delivery of the work, and with designated NATMAP

Consortium members, or other entities designated by the Steering Committee, in respect

of contractual- and payment arrangements.

6.8.4.4 Possible questions

The following elementary seed questions remain after this Framework Report, as non-

exhaustive suggestions only, of the type of issues to which international consultants

could add value. Actual questions would of course follow from execution of Phase 2 of

this proposal:

Several of the Recommendations in this Framework Report relate to further work that

could be assigned to consultants.

- 129 -

What considerations regarding right-of-way might influence the trade-off among and

choice of guided surface transport solutions (acquisition excepted)?

What costing principles and generic details apply to urban rail, regional rail, and high-

speed and ultra-high-speed intercity? Are there associations with indicators of economic

development?

What economic- and other considerations inform selection at boundaries between guided

surface transport system options?

What decision criteria are useful when borderline trade-offs between modes must be

made? Are institutional arrangements helpful or a hindrance in achieving robust and

expeditious resolution? What adaptation mechanisms support natural progress to the

optimum solution?

If South Africa migrated away from the present choice between bus or 5M/10M

suburban sets, and Shosholoza Meyl long distance trains, what would be the optimum

range of passenger rail applications?

6.8.4.5 Possible routes

The following railway routes are offered, as non-exhaustive suggestions only, of

situations in which study by international consultants could add value. Actual routes

would of course follow from execution of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of this proposal, as well

as direction by the Steering Committee:

KwaZulu Natal: A coastal railway northwards and southwards of eThekwini—a setting

in which existing railways offer access to densely populated areas but pose an

interoperability challenge to extend contemporary rail to areas beyond.

Western Cape: A Garden Route railway—the natural beauty is at once an attraction to

tourists and a challenge for railways. Can contemporary rail solutions rise to the

challenge?

North West: A Pilanesberg-Gauteng railway—deploy a contemporary rail solution to

stimulate an economic development corridor. Possibly as an expansion of the Gauteng

Regional Rail scenario in this report?

6.8.4.6 Prospective international consultants

Procurement of their services, and possibly the services of others, will rest on the

questions ultimately generated at the Stakeholder Workshop.

6.8.4.7 Site visits

It is suggested that a Department of Transport and PRASA team visit some of the

following sites:

Contemporary narrow gauge commuter operations, to gain exposure

to the level of service that is possible, and to assess first hand whether

standard gauge can justify the cost of gauge change. Examples are

Perth’s 130km/h regional sets, and several in Japan.

- 130 -

Regional rail sites—Toronto GO Transit, with a mix of freight- and

passenger trains.

Light Rail sites—many around the world. Turkey would be

interesting, for its background of ramping up investment in urban

railways, for light rail, and its high speed project.

Automated Light Metro (VAL)—Taipei, Rennes.

Saudi Arabia—heavy freight and high-speed passenger sharing the

same infrastructure.

Toulouse—integrated bus, automated Light Metro (VAL), light rail,

and regional rail.

These represent early opportunities of which decision makers should be well-informed

through personal exposure. They are prime sites but not unique, so substitutes would be

possible.

6.8.5 Phase 4

Completion of Phase 4 will be contingent on completion of all preceding work. For

estimation purposes RCS proposed an indicative eight-week period between all inputs

being to hand, and delivery of the final report. The actual time required will of course

depend on the direction given by the Steering Committee, and the amount of integration

required.

6.8.5.1 Integration

Integrate the external, local, and international inputs with respect to their terms of

reference and the Framework Report, to develop a balanced overall perspective on

passenger railway technology for South Africa.

6.8.5.2 Overall recommendations

Suggest considerations that should inform strategic positioning of passenger railway

technology in policy formulation for South Africa.

Suggest priorities for ensuring rational migration from the status quo to a desirable future

end state. The priorities will pay particular attention, where applicable, to identifying

courses of action that could preclude attainment of a desirable end state.

7 Conclusions

7.1 Aspirational end-state scenarios

7.1.1 Moving technology forward

South Africa finds itself in a challenging situation regarding passenger rail technology.

On the one hand, examination of the status quo found a substantial backlog. On the other

hand, the global railway renaissance has developed a range of attractive mass mobility

solutions that could change the face of South Africa. If the country wants integrated rail

based mass mobility, the only conclusion can be that it needs to migrate from the former

to the latter. In concluding, this report outlines a set of aspirational technology end-state

scenarios, together with a prognosis on how far South Africa could reasonably attain

them.

- 131 -

7.1.2 Urban rail

In conclusion regarding urban rail, it is the most immediately tractable of contemporary

rail solutions for South Africa. In the high-capacity metro market space, it operates

essentially on its own infrastructure, can reasonably be segmented to implement new

technology piecemeal, and does not require changing to standard gauge to deliver

substantial benefits. It offers capacity potential far beyond current services. A first step

could thus be to acquire new high-capacity metro rolling stock for selected high-priority

corridors (without losing sight of the need for matching investment in short headway

signalling).

Following the example of Singapore, which grew around its metro system, and was

greatly influenced by it, good urban rail seeds urban development, and provides a

foundation for an integrated mass transport system.

Note also the emergence of a range of alternative rubber-tyred and steel-wheel-on-steel

rail solutions in the urban market space. They could either provide feeder services to

metro routes, or shoulder the transport task in lower priority corridors, and therefore

warrant serious consideration.

7.1.3 Regional Rail

Regional rail solutions seed regional development, as well as interregional travel, in the

40-400km market space. It serves a market where short journey time is important, hence

high speed and standard gauge are required. Of course, most existing infrastructure in

this distance range is narrow gauge TFR property. This is the first market space in which

the suitability of TFR infrastructure for competitive rail applications could become an

issue. It may be economically viable to kick-start a dedicated standard gauge regional rail

network in a compact, densely developed, province like Gauteng. It may even be found

possible to expand such a network into the contiguous Free State, Mpumalanga, North

West, and Northern Provinces. However, outside Gauteng, regional rail could require

accommodation with TFR to leverage value from existing right of way. In conclusion

regarding regional rail, it is likely to be the next contemporary rail solution in South

Africa after metro.

7.1.4 High-speed Intercity

In principle, high-speed intercity trains, to 200km/h, need standard gauge track. They

could also require substantial re-alignment of existing infrastructure, as well as

substantial supporting work. High-speed intercity trains could possibly share

infrastructure with TFR, if the latter changed track gauge to standard gauge on routes

that coincided with passenger requirements. In that scenario, contention for line capacity

between freight and passenger trains would likely be an issue. However, as most existing

TFR infrastructure is riddled with speed-limited curves, it must be concluded that there is

only limited prospect of high-speed intercity services in South Africa.

Proposals have been made, for further evaluation, regarding routes that are inherently

unsuitable for freight traffic, which could be dedicated to passenger traffic. The

economics of change, and the cost of maintenance under high-speed operations, will be

important considerations.

- 132 -

7.1.5 Ultra-high-speed Intercity

The ultimate aspiration for any developing country is ultra-high-speed rail service

between key cities. It is not possible to stretch the capability of conventional lines to

handle train speeds of 350+ km/h, not even on standard gauge railways, so ultra-high-

speed railways require dedicated lines. Such projects are therefore expensive: Although

South Africa may not yet appear ready to justify such investment, several economic peer

countries have already initiated studies or made commitments to ultra-high-speed rail

service. It is likely that they have ways of evaluating positive socio-economic

contributions outside conventional cost-benefit analysis, and a recommendation has been

made in this regard.

7.2 Prognosis: Leap ahead

Conceptual migration paths to the foregoing solutions do exist, and have been outlined in

this report. A mature approach to interoperability requirements can set them in motion.

Determining cost/benefit ratios of indicated mobility solutions was outside the scope of

this study. However, analysis relative to the many socio-economic factors that influence

mass mobility should clearly be a first step. Migration to any of the contemporary rail

solutions will undoubtedly be expensive. Against this, one must weigh the opportunity

cost to a society and its economy of its mass mobility system not supporting its

developmental aspirations.

The most secure guidance comes from the green thread that runs through this report. It

leads to the conclusion that, on the one hand lack of progress in realizing a back-to-rail

aspiration is allowing less environmentally friendly commuter transport modes to capture

market share, while on the other hand services based on legacy passenger rail technology

are over resourced95

by contemporary norms, and therefore hardly tenable as a better

solution.

This situation must have a substantial impact on developments in the PRASA sphere of

influence. If South Africa commits to contemporary rail mass mobility solutions, it will

be in good company among its economic peers. If it does not, it should expect to be

excluded from entering the global passenger railway mainstream, and possibly find it

difficult to keep pace with its peers.

At this time, South Africa has a passenger rail backlog: Half measures will not

adequately resolve the issues. Arguably, the most incisive strategy would be to emulate

Korea Rail in its Leap Ahead strategy.

7.3 Opening a migration path

Good, well-conceived passenger railways grow, because they influence and attract

development. First-mover advantage accrues to the transport mode that defines the basic

urban and regional fabric for many years to come. The study has shown compelling

economic, environmental, and technological reasons why that mode should be rail. It is

evident that restoring passenger railways to their rightful role in South Africa will not be

a trivial task. Success demands:

95 This conclusion refers particularly to the quantum of physical resources, such as infrastructure, rolling

stock, energy consumption, and maintenance arrangements.

- 133 -

A holistic view of global opportunities and solutions,

An appreciation of the time-scale of the challenge

A clear, shared vision by all stakeholders, and

A bold approach.

Many constraints stand in the way of implementing contemporary passenger railways in

South Africa. If a foundation is not laid for realizing that aspiration in manageable

portions, the process could falter. The task is enormous, but with clear thinking and

resolve, there is no way it should not happen.

7.4 Some cautions

7.4.1 Potential hazards

Two possible immediate hazards for the NATMAP process should be recognized.

First, one of the major challenges is that the passenger rail status quo is hardly a secure

basis from which to project the future. One would expect implementation of the rail

solutions described in this report to stimulate a shift from bus and taxi to rail, and even to

create new mass mobility opportunities that existing solutions cannot support.

Second, to the extent that possible future regional rail services may need to build on TFR

plans in respect of issues such as shared access and changing gauge, TFR plans

themselves do not appear to recognize many of the inherent weaknesses of freight rail

positioning in South Africa.

The NATMAP Consortia need to factor in these planning hazards as best they can.

7.4.2 Phasing-in

Contemporary rolling stock would, to the extent that its features address the

shortcomings of existing rolling stock, alleviate negative passenger perceptions. To the

extent that the fleet is expanded, it would also provide increased capacity.

Note however that aligning infrastructure- and rolling stock performance characteristics

maximizes overall system performance. While contemporary rolling stock can be made

to run on existing South African infrastructure, maximizing overall system performance

would also require upgrading infrastructure performance. Not doing so would fail to

extract the full potential of the rolling stock, and result in an economically sub-optimum

solution.

As a minimum, aligning infrastructure with contemporary rolling stock performance

characteristics would require a signalling system that could support the short headways

to which contemporary metro stock can run, and would likely require examining the

necessity for all existing points and crossings, as well as permissible speeds through

them.

At this time, the caveat is mentioned simply to preempt the possible misperception that

investing in rolling stock will be a panacea. Greenfields routes should as a matter of

course implement infrastructure that matches the performance of contemporary rolling

stock.

- 134 -

7.4.3 Cherry picking

This report has presented a coherent set of technologies with indications of how they

relate to and complement one another. It is not recommended to cherry pick portions of

different solutions that may seem to appeal.

8 References

ADIF allows freight access to HS lines. 2009. International Railway Journal, Vol. 49(2),

p. 8.

African Union of Railways. Undated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_African_Railways, retrieved 2009-02-25.

African Union. 2007. Professional Conference on Interconnection, Interoperability and

Complementarity of African Railway Systems, 20-21 November 2007, Johannes-

burg, South Africa. http://www.africa-

union.org/root/ua/Documents/Reports/IE/2005%20till%202008%20meetings/Joh

annesburg%20-%2019-

20%20November%2007/French/Draft%20Recommendations.doc, retrieved

2009-03-05.

Automating Brazil’s busiest metro lines. 2009. Railway Gazette International, Vol. 165,

pp. 27-30.

Barouski, D. 2008. Dar, Kigali to build EA’s first wide gauge railway line.

http://africannewsanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/03/dar-kigali-to-build-eas-first-

wide.html, retrieved 2009-02-25.

Bhatnagar, G.V. 2006. Conflicting views over Mumbai Metro gauge. The Hindu (Online

Edition), May 26.

Boagey, A. & Genain, M, 2009. London’s cross-city line follows the RER model.

Railway Gazette International, Vol. 165, pp. 62-64.

Bowen, D.J. 2008. DLRT seeks its niche. Railway Age, September, pp. 65, 67-68.

Briginshaw, D. 2008. Green Train shows Swedish technology. International Railway

Journal, Vol. 48(9), pp. 51-52, 54.

Briginshaw, D. 2009. A stark warning to others. International Railway Journal, Vol.

49(1), p. 2.

C2 class Melbourne tram. Undated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C2_class_Melbourne_tram, retrieved 2009-0426.

Cairns Tilt Train derailment. Undated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosedale_train_crash, retrieved 2009-04-04.

China develops maglev train for urban transport. 2009.

Chūō Shinkansen. Undated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen, retrieved 2009-

03-07.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/18/content_10839686.htm, retrieved

2009-03-07.

Dedicated Freight Corridor construction launched. 2009.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2009/02/9360/dedicated_freig

ht_corridor_construction_launched.html, retrieved 2009-03-25.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_African_Railways

http://www.africa-union.org/root/ua/Documents/Reports/IE/2005%20till%202008%20meetings/Johannesburg%20-%2019-20%20November%2007/French/Draft%20Recommendations.doc




http://africannewsanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/03/dar-kigali-to-build-eas-first-wide.html

http://africannewsanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/03/dar-kigali-to-build-eas-first-wide.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C2_class_Melbourne_tram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosedale_train_crash

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ch%C5%AB%C5%8D_Shinkansen

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-02/18/content_10839686.htm

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2009/02/9360/dedicated_freight_corridor_construction_launched.html

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2009/02/9360/dedicated_freight_corridor_construction_launched.html

- 135 -

Drapa, J., Moore Ede, B. & Polivka, A. 2007. PTC starts to roll out across the USA.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2007/05/7210/ptc_starts_to_ro

ll_out_across_the_usa.html, retrieved 2009-03-06.

Driverless metros. Undated. http://mic-ro.com/metro/driverless.html, retrieved 2009-01-

02.

Eskisehir launches Turkey's newest light rail tramway. 2005.

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog002.htm#ESK_20050306, retrieved

2009-02-26.

European Commission. 2008, Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and

of the Council concerning a European rail network for competitive freight.

http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0852:FIN:EN:PDF,

retrieved 2009-03-25.

European Union. 2008. Directive 2008/57/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 17 June 2008 on the interoperability of the rail system within the

Community. Official Journal of the European Union, 18 July.

Gauge change train. Undated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_Change_Train,


Gevert, T. 2008. HS project in the fast lane. International Railway Journal, Vol. 48(11),

pp. 44-45.

Gharajedaghi, J. 1983. Corporate pathology. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.

Hondius, H. 2008. Gröna Tåget spawns EC04. Railway Gazette International, Vol. 164,

pp. 725-726.

Industry projects. Undated. http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/, retrieved

2009-03-09.

Kei Rail launch part of beefing up rail services. 2009.

http://midafricam.co.za/main/component/option,com_joomlaboard/func,view/id,3

0/catid,17/, retrieved 2009-04-09.

Kennedy, R.R. Undated. Considering monorail rapid transit for North American cities,

p. 24. . www.monorails.org/webpix%202/RyanRKennedy.pdf, retrieved 2009-01-

02.

Korea's first commercial maglev train line to be set up at Incheon airport. 2007.

http://www.korea.net/News/News/LangView.asp?serial_no=20070627004&lang

_no=1&part=106&SearchDay=, retrieved 2009-03-07.

Lukov, B. 2009. Three-stage programme to update RZD’s fleet. Railway Gazette

International, Vol. 165, pp.31-34.

Lew, A. 2008. Maglev Project in Munich: Cancelled.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/maglev-project.html, retrieved 2009-03-07.

Magnetic levitation technology (maglev). Undated. http://www.railway-

energy.org/tfee/index.php?ID=220&TECHNOLOGYID=59&SEL=210&EXPA

NDALL=3, retrieved 2009-04-06.

Morocco to build high-speed rail link. Undated. http://www.railway-

technology.com/news/news2841.html, retrieved 2009-03-09.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2007/05/7210/ptc_starts_to_roll_out_across_the_usa.html

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2007/05/7210/ptc_starts_to_roll_out_across_the_usa.html

http://mic-ro.com/metro/driverless.html

http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_newslog002.htm#ESK_20050306

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0852:FIN:EN:PDF

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2008:0852:FIN:EN:PDF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_Change_Train

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/

http://midafricam.co.za/main/component/option,com_joomlaboard/func,view/id,30/catid,17/

http://midafricam.co.za/main/component/option,com_joomlaboard/func,view/id,30/catid,17/

http://www.monorails.org/webpix%202/RyanRKennedy.pdf,%20retrieved%202009

http://www.korea.net/News/News/LangView.asp?serial_no=20070627004&lang_no=1&part=106&SearchDay

http://www.korea.net/News/News/LangView.asp?serial_no=20070627004&lang_no=1&part=106&SearchDay

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/03/maglev-project.html

http://www.railway-energy.org/tfee/index.php?ID=220&TECHNOLOGYID=59&SEL=210&EXPANDALL=3



http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news2841.html

http://www.railway-technology.com/news/news2841.html

- 136 -

Mumbai monorail contract. 2009. Railway Gazette International, Vol. 165, p. 15.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 2007a. Annual Report.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/AmtrakAnnualReport_2007.pdf, retrieved 2009-03-

25. p. 6.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 2007b. Annual Report.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/AmtrakAnnualReport_2007.pdf, retrieved 2009-03-

25. p. 20.

National Transport Master Plan. 2009a. Rail Gauge Report.

National Transport Master Plan. 2009c. Rail Gauge Report, Annexure 2.

National Transport Master Plan. 2009d. Rail Gauge Report, Annexure 3.

National Transport Master Plan. 2009f. Rail Gauge Report, Annexure 5.

National Transport Master Plan. 2009g. Rail Gauge Report, Annexure 6.

New 350km/h High-speed train efSET aiming at the global market. 2008.

http://www.khi.co.jp/ba/2008data/ba_c3080911_1.html, retrieved 2009-03-04.

New Pendolino. Undated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETR_610, retrieved 2009-03-04.

Okada, H. 1994. Features and economic and social effects of the Shinkansen. Japan

Railway and Transport Review, October, pp. 9-16.

On the fast track to reform. 2009. Railway Gazette International, Vol. 165, pp. 53-55.

Perry, A. 2009. Africa, Business destination. Time, Vol. 173(12), pp. 32-34.

Planned high-speed rail by country. Undated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_high-

speed_rail_by_country#India, retrieved 2009-03-25.

Platform screen doors. Undated. http://mic-ro.com/metro/platform-screen-doors.html,


Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008. United States House of Representatives.

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Rail/Rail%20Safety.pdf, retrieved

2009-04-13.

Roland Berger Strategy Consultants. 2008. Worldwide rail market study—status quo and

outlook 2016. Hamburg: DVV Media Group.

Segregation for 200km/h running. 2008. Railway Gazette International, Vol. 164, p. 477.

Shosholoza Meyl Routes. Undated.

http://www.spoornet.co.za/ShosholozaMeyl/index.jsp, retrieved 2009-03-08.

Siemens H-Bahn (SIPEM). Undated. http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPSiem.html,


South African Rail Commuter Corporation. 2006. National railplan consolidated report.

South African Rail Commuter Corporation. 2008/09. Business Plan.

South African Rail Commuter Corporation. Undated. Rail revitalization in rural and

intercity context, PowerPoint presentation.

South African Transport Services. 1980a. Second quarterly report of the Task Group

investigating high speed suburban and intercity passenger services, Annexure K,

p.19.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/AmtrakAnnualReport_2007.pdf

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/AmtrakAnnualReport_2007.pdf

http://www.khi.co.jp/ba/2008data/ba_c3080911_1.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETR_610

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_high-speed_rail_by_country#India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_high-speed_rail_by_country#India

http://mic-ro.com/metro/platform-screen-doors.html

http://transportation.house.gov/Media/File/Rail/Rail%20Safety.pdf

http://www.spoornet.co.za/ShosholozaMeyl/index.jsp

http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/TPSiem.html

- 137 -

South African Transport Services. 1980b. Second quarterly report of the Task Group


p.23.

South African Transport Services. 1980c. Second quarterly report of the Task Group


Appendix 15.

South African Transport Services. 1980d. Second quarterly report of the Task Group

investigating high speed suburban and intercity passenger services, p.7.

Spoornet. 2005. Working Time Book No.107.

Taylor, C. 2007. World Speed Survey: New lines boost rail's high speed performance.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/09//new_lines_boost_rai

ls_high_speed_performance.html, retrieved 2009-03-03.

Tests to cease on Emsland guideway. 2009. Railway Gazette International, Vol. 165,

p. 23.

The days they changed the gauge. Undated.. http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1966/66-

8/gauge.html, retrieved 2009-04-05.

Transit ridership continues to roll. 2009. Progressive Railroading, Vol. 52(1), p.4.

Transnet. 2008. Annual Report, Freight Rail.

http://www.transnet.co.za/AR_2008/pdf/freight-rail.pdf, retrieved 2009-01-05.

UIC. Undated. General definitions of highspeed.

http://www.uic.asso.fr/uic/spip.php?article971, retrieved 2009-03-03.

UIC. Undated. In view of operating standpoint.

http://www.uic.asso.fr/gv/article.php3?id_article=17, retrieved 2009-03-03.

UIC. Undated. In view of rolling stock.

http://www.uic.asso.fr/gv/article.php3?id_article=16, retrieved 2009-03-03.

UIC. Undated. Wide-body stock. http://www.railway-

energy.org/tfee/index.php?ID=220&TECHNOLOGYID=22&SEL=210&SEKTI

ON=Sec2_closed#a_General%20criteria, retrieved 2009-04-06.

UNIFE. Undated. Research. http://www.unife.org/page.asp?pid=26, retrieved 2009-01-

05.

Van der Meulen, R.D. & Möller, L.C. 2006. Railway globalization: Leveraging insight

from developed- into developing regions. Proceedings of the Seventh World

Congress on Railway Research [CD-ROM]. Montréal, QC, Canada.

Van der Meulen, R.D. & Möller, L.C. 2008a. Strategies for sustainable mobility: Urban

railways as global corporate citizens. Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress

on Railway Research, G.2.2.2.1 [CD-ROM]. Seoul, Korea.

Van der Meulen, R.D. & Möller, L.C. 2008b. Ultimate interoperability: Line-haul

railways as global corporate citizens. Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress

on Railway Research, PN.1.2 [CD-ROM]. Seoul, Korea.

Van der Meulen, R.D. 2008. Eastern Cape Rail Strategy. Eastern Cape Rail Conference:

Back to Rail, Port Elizabeth: Eastern Cape Department of Roads & Transport.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/09/new_lines_boost_rails_high_speed_performance.html

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/09/new_lines_boost_rails_high_speed_performance.html

http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1966/66-8/gauge.html

http://southern.railfan.net/ties/1966/66-8/gauge.html

http://www.transnet.co.za/AR_2008/pdf/freight-rail.pdf

http://www.uic.asso.fr/uic/spip.php?article971

http://www.uic.asso.fr/gv/article.php3?id_article=17

http://www.uic.asso.fr/gv/article.php3?id_article=16

http://www.railway-energy.org/tfee/index.php?ID=220&TECHNOLOGYID=22&SEL=210&SEKTION=Sec2_closed#a_General%20criteria



http://www.unife.org/page.asp?pid=26

- 138 -

Van der Voort, J.J.P. 1980. Mass transit for urban groups: Systems and capacity

considerations. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria.

White Paper on National Transport Policy. 1996. Pretoria: Department of Transport.

Wide-body stock. Undated. Energy efficiency technologies for railways.

http://www.railway-

energy.org/tfee/index.php?ID=220&TECHNOLOGYID=22&SEL=210&SEKTI

ON=Sec1_closed#a_General%20information, retrieved 2009-04-13.

http://www.railway-energy.org/tfee/index.php?ID=220&TECHNOLOGYID=22&SEL=210&SEKTION=Sec1_closed#a_General%20information



PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY: PHASE 1- FRAMEWORK REPORT · PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY:...

Documents

Transcript of PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY: PHASE 1- FRAMEWORK REPORT · PASSENGER RAIL TECHNOLOGY STUDY:...